treg@e)i tyrb(l Myrwspwrph dwgy) Newsletter of the National Association of Professors of Hebrew Editor: Zev Garber, Los Angeles Valley College Fall 2016 No. 88

In This Issue: Presidential Perspective Notes From Here I flew to Rhode Island to attend the annual NAPH and There 3 conference, held at Brown University, straight out of the last class meeting of my graduate-level summer Meetings and course. The course, Dissertation Boot Camp, brings Conferences 20 together twenty plus dissertators from our Liberal Arts departments, and the goal is for them to sit NAPH Annual together for four hours or so daily and write, Meeting 24 completing a chapter of their respective dissertations International by the end of the course and, hopefully, maintaining the writing momentum all the Conference 28 way to the finish line. I incorporate in the course conversations about issues such as time management, resilience, student-supervisor dynamics, and alt-ac careers, and Notes from introduce the students to experts on mental health, nutrition, and fitness. I work with the Field 29 them on the “elevator pitch” version of their dissertation, and try to break the pattern of isolation that is often a behavioral signature of the dissertator, especially in the News from Our humanities. I find myself increasingly in the position of struggling to assure these Members 35 bright, conscientious and creative young scholars that their work is significant, that Eta Beta Rho 40 our disciplinary traditions and methods of inquiry are viable, and that we, academics, are relevant. NAPH Officers and I recently read Te-Erika Patterson’s article “Why Do So Many Graduate Students Addresses 42 Quit?” (The Atlantic, July 6 2016), which discusses doctoral students’ struggles with depression and other mental-health issues, poor mentoring practices, and a weak job market. One of my boot-campers sent it to me, noting how the article echoed some of our course conversations. My response to him, like many of our conversations, referenced the relevance of his work: his dissertation chronicles shifts in presidential beliefs about “national character,” and the manner in which such beliefs influence American foreign policy. At a time when it looks like our country is in free fall, can one question the import of such work, and the rationale for training as a scholar who can produce this kind of knowledge? We are at a point that demands serious self- examination, and while I do not subscribe to downhearted outlooks like that of Leonard Cassuto in The Graduate School Mess: What Caused It and How We Can Fix It (Harvard University Press, 2015), I can fully see the merit of an observation that he makes in the book: “The nonacademic population is angry at the university,” he writes (211). I have, indeed, witnessed such sentiments, here in Texas and nationwide. More broadly, and acutely at this point in time, I am deeply troubled by the “anger” discourse that has dominated this year’s primary season, and by one of its popular spinoffs, the widespread disdain for “the elite.” We may not be policy experts or news- channel commentators, but as academics we are often perceived as pundits, as providers of services that are unjustifiably expensive, as agents of a system that Continued on next page. . .

Fall 2016, No. 88 3 Presidential Perspective (Continued) . . . impoverishes its own trainees. Our scholars in the making often work under conditions that have the potential of bringing about distress and depression—this disdain adds a layer of uneasiness, and a formidable one. For us, at the University of Texas at Austin, this layer is augmented by a palpable threat, as we brace ourselves for the implementation of Senate Bill 11, known as “campus carry,” scheduled to go into effect on August 1, the 50th anniversary of the 1966 shooting spree that claimed 14 lives on the UT campus. I get a painful daily reminder of where we stand as I am greeted by the gold-leafed Hebrew letters on the UT Tower, now rusty and barely recognizable like the other ancient letters on the 80-year old symbol of the University. These symbols of our commitment to knowledge are allowed to fade, while guns are invited into our classrooms. How did we get here?

I really do not know. I write this column at the end of a dark week, as verbal and physical violence dominate the news, and I struggle to not lose heart. As I look for healing, I know that there is a big “how” hovering over us, with very few answers: We should turn to love and kindness. To our faith. To dialogue. To the common Continued on next page. . .

Fall 2016, No. 88 4 Presidential Perspective (Continued) . . . core of our humanity. For us, Hebrew scholars, as for other academics, the “how” is perhaps dependent on our ability to keep doing what we do best, and continue the work through which we preserve and hold on to cultures, memories, and values that may quickly be pushed into oblivion if we retreat into academic solitude. ואהבת לרעך כמוך Much like the memory of Palmira is kept alive in the work of art historians, the memory of lives in our work, as does, for me, Alterman’s post WWI imperative that has suddenly gained a new, "שני בנים לי. שנים.../אהבתים מאוד. ליבותיהם טובים./ אך בבוא היום... למען השמים,/ אל תתנו :unexpected sense of urgency להם רובים." So at this point in the sad summer of 2016, it is comforting and gratifying to think back to our conference, and note that we are still vibrant and innovative, staying on course in our focus on scholarship, and taking NAPH forward with new members and fresh ideas: The papers in Hebrew Studies, our language and literature journal edited by Serge Frolov (SMU), are now available electronically, which has significantly increased the exposure to the work of our colleagues; Hebrew Higher Education, our methodology and pedagogy journal, will appear under the editorship of Nitza Krohn (JTS) in a new electronic format with articles published on a rolling basis; The Conference Committee, under the leadership of Zafrira Lidovsky Cohen (Stern College of Yeshiva University), is pushing forward with new topics and panel formats and broader outreach to potential members. And with the knowledge that 2015-16 has been a good year in the job market for Hebrew applied linguists and pedagogy experts, I conclude on a hopeful note, looking forward to the renewal of energy, grit, friendships and collaborations that come with our conference interactions and sustain us from one hot summer to the next and beyond. Esther Raizen, The University of Texas at Austin, [email protected]

Notes From Here & There Zev Garber In collaboration with Rebecca Alpert, Eugene Fisher, Gudrun Lier, Richard Libowitz, David Patterson, Norman Simms, Joshua Schwartz, Marvin A. Sweeney

The academic year 2015-16 witnessed on a number of American college and university campuses virulent anti-Israel activity. Disrespect, disruption, defamation marred pro-Israel events. In my home state of California, confrontational demonstrations (quasi and whole) occurred at San Diego State University, San Francisco State University, and the University of California campuses in Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles. Typical was the vocal protest by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), Muslim Student Union (MDU), MeCHA, BSU, and other groups who disrupted a pro-Israel film (“Under the Helmet”) and discussion at UC Irvine (May 18, 2016). Representatives of the National Lawyers Guild counter-claimed that the protesters made no threats, destroyed no property, and listened to campus police when told that they were blocking the exit. The declared position of the University: free speech is a privilege not an absolute right. That is to say, speech without threat or intimidation excludes defamatory speech, threats, harassment, etc. Interrupting school sanctioned pro-Israel events with shouts of “Allahu Akbar,” “Displacing People since ‘48/ There’s Nothing Here to Celebrate,” “Long Live Intifada,” “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free” permeate the line of civility. Granted vilification of Israel by the call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is politically correct or incorrect or seen as antisemitism, anti-Zionism or appropriate downsizing of a tyrannical state is common fare in American polity. However, when academic societies (American Studies Association, Association for Asian American Studies, African Literature Association, Critical Ethnic Studies Association, National Women’s Studies Association, Native American and Indigenous Studies Association and on) have voted for an academic boycott of Israel and its schools of higher education under the veneer Continued on next page. . .

Fall 2016, No. 88 5 of ethical and moral repute of an oppressing power, we question its reason and intent. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) anti-Israel resolution and advisory is not a-typical. Scholars of different backgrounds, countries, disciplines, and religions were invited to comment on the merits of the AAA BDS resolution and related activity.

AAA Votes Down Academic Boycott Resolution Other Actions Planned

In a close vote, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) membership voted against a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Voting took place by electronic ballot between April 15 and May 31. Fifty-one percent of AAA’s eligible members voted, the largest turnout in AAA history, with 2,423 members opposing the resolution, and 2,384 voting to support it. “The membership has spoken and we hear them,” said AAA President Alisse Waterston. “We appreciate this was a difficult vote on an important and contentious issue. I’m especially proud that our members participated in knowledgeable, thoughtful, respectful debate throughout the process, and that AAA offers a model for informed engagement on difficult subjects. Now is the time for us to come together as an association steadfastly committed to advancing scholarly knowledge, to finding solutions to human and social problems, to giving voice to the underserved and to serving as a guardian of human rights.” AAA members are generally in agreement that serious threats to academic freedom and human rights have been noted in Israel-Palestine as a result of Israeli government policies and practices, and that AAA should respond to these threats. The AAA Executive Board has approved a set of actions that are aligned with the Association's core values and mission as a professional society and in accordance with the findings, guiding principles, and list of possible actions detailed in the Task Force on Israel Palestine (TFIP) report. The Board-approved actions include:  Issuing a statement of censure of the Israeli government  Issuing a letter to relevant authorities in the US government identifying the ways in which US resources and policies contribute to policies in Israel/Palestine that violate academic freedom and disenfranchise Palestinians.  Approving ways to provide active resource support for Palestinian and Israeli academics as well as visiting scholars in the region.

To view the full set of actions click here.

By means of these actions, AAA will contribute to raising critical awareness of the dynamics of peace and conflict in the region, draw attention to the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinian people as a result of the Occupation and what can be done about it, and expand the space for dialogue on these sensitive and important human rights and academic freedom issues. AAA believes that these actions can contribute to the enrichment of the health and welfare of all citizens in the region, increased circulation of anthropological scholarship, eased restrictions on scholars’ travel, increased freedom of expression for Palestinian and Israeli anthropologists, and increased dialogue about how archaeology is used in political arguments. Waterston added, “We understand the Association’s capacities and limitations to effect positive social change. We also see the conditions on the ground in Israel-Palestine and understand the multiplicity of factors that have created them. Our actions do not come from a position of easy moral superiority but from love for all of humanity.” - - AAA - - Founded in 1902, the American Anthropological Association, with almost 10,000 members, is the world’s largest professional organization of anthropologists. The Association is dedicated to advancing human understanding and tackling the world’s most pressing problems.

Fall 2016, No. 88 6 Reflections Eugene Fisher, Saint Leo University

Being Pro Palestine and Pro Israel

The stance of the AAA on the issue of Palestinian-Israeli relations is, as the AAA acknowledges, very complex. Yet the AAA, in the end, takes sides. Yes, Israeli policies under the current Israeli government do not always treat Palestinian needs fairly. But, no, this is not solely the fault of Israel. The AAA ignores the fact that many Arab/Muslim governments use Israel as a scapegoat to deflect criticism of their own oppression of their own people. Iran, for example, persists in disseminating the antisemitic cartoons and slurs that were all too common in Europe before the Shoah/Holocaust, and in many ways paved the way for the Shoah. The AAA ignores the fact that Israel is a place of refuge for the Jews of Europe, and indeed for the Jews of the Muslim world expelled from their ancient communities. As such, the State of Israel has the right to exist. Indeed it is the moral responsibility of both Muslim and Christian societies to ensure its continued existence. Yet many in the Muslim world continue to deny the validity of the State of Israel and to push for its destruction which would, in effect, be a second Holocaust. The AAA appeals to morality as the motivation for its anti-Israel policies. I would argue that it is our obligation in the Western world to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. We ought not choose one over the other, but work to benefit both Israel and Palestine. In this we would do best to work toward a two-state solution, in which the very real needs of both Palestinians and Israelis could be addressed and to a great extent be resolved. To choose one side over the other is to choose to perpetuate the virtual state of war that continues to plague and endanger both Jews and Palestinians. Only a peaceful, just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can allow for the need of Israel to remain a secure refuge from Christian and Muslim animosity, and allow the much needed assistance for the very real needs of Palestinians. It should not be seen as an either/or, but as a both/and, to meet the very real needs of both sides of this tragic conflict, which the AAA's position would perpetuate and worsen.

Eugene Fisher, [email protected]

Marvin A. Sweeney Claremont School of Theology, Academy of Jewish Religion

The BDS Movement: A Threat to Free Inquiry The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement is a threat to free inquiry in Academia in America and throughout the world. The decision to boycott Israeli universities and academics together with non-Israeli scholars and institutions who are linked to Israeli universities contradicts the basic purpose of academic work, viz., to develop and expand knowledge in and about the world in which we live. Such boycotts subsume free inquiry to political considerations and therefore constitute political control and suppression. They are analogous to the efforts of governments that seek to prevent their universities from serving as voices for truth in their respective societies. The recent decisions of the American Studies Association, the Association for Asian American Studies, and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association to join in the BDS Movement’s efforts to boycott Israeli academia demonstrates basic hypocrisy insofar as the boycott runs contrary to the established purposes of an academic organization to promote free inquiry in their given fields. Their decisions have resulted in the withdrawal of at least four major universities from the American Studies Association, viz., Brandeis University, Indiana University, Kenyon College, and Penn State Harrisburg, and the condemnation of the boycott by the Presidents and Senior Administrators of some two hundred American colleges and universities.

Fall 2016, No. 88 7 In January, 2014, one hundred thirty-four members of the United States Congress, almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, wrote to then ASA president Curtis Marez and president- elect Lisa Duggan to accuse the ASA of engaging in a “morally dishonest double standard.” Their letter further stated that: “Like all democracies, Israel is not perfect. But to single out Israel, while leaving relationships with universities in autocratic and repressive countries intact, suggests thinly-veiled bigotry and bias.” There is no proposal to boycott countries, such as Russia, North Korea, Iran, and now Turkey in the aftermath of the recently attempted coup, which are notorious for their control of their own academic institutions. The Association of American Universities, the American Association of University Professors, and the American Council on Education have all denounced the boycott as a violation of the academic freedom of both Israeli and American scholars. Indeed, the BDS movement also proposes to boycott American business and industries that do business with Israel. Fortunately, the BDS movement has had little success in persuading American colleges and universities to boycott American businesses and industries that do business with Israel. Caterpillar, an American company that manufactures heavy earthmoving equipment, is a major target of the BDS movement. It is also one of the major employers in my own hometown of Decatur, Illinois, where it employs some 1500 people. The BDS movement would threaten the jobs of these people, not to mention the many people and businesses that depend on Caterpillar’s presence in Decatur and elsewhere. The BDS movement is a threat both to American academia and to the American economy. The BDS movement looks especially to the work of Edward Said for its inspiration and sense of purpose. In his 1978 book, Orientalism, Said decries the patronizing treatment and fictional portrayals of eastern cultures in western cultures and scholarship, leaving eastern cultures subject to western imperialism, and instead demands western recognition of the political, cultural, and intellectual integrity of eastern cultures. But he refuses to demand similar treatment of Israel. Under the influence of Said, many eastern nations have come to view Israel solely as the creation of western imperialism. Israel and Judaism are in fact rooted in the Middle East and were themselves the victims of Roman, Arab, Turkish, and British imperialism. There are better ways to express disagreement with Israel. Following the refusal of its membership to approve a boycott of Israeli universities, the American Anthropological Association wrote letters to both the Israeli government and to the US State Department to state its concerns. But the best approach is to do what academics do, i.e., become educated on the issues at hand in order to have a full understanding of what is really at stake. In the case of Israel, it is an open society and the only true democracy in the Middle East and should not be subject to boycotts, divestments, and sanctions by academic organizations. Marvin A. Sweeney, [email protected]

Norman Simms University of Waikato, NZ Je suis consterné… I am appalled by what the academics in America and elsewhere in the West are attempting to do. And even more so when an academic group such as the American Anthropological Association comes close to approving a motion on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctioning of Israel, many important matters come into question concerning their scientific objectivity, their educational ethics, and their knowledge of history. I am appalled because the very idea of singling out the State of Israel for such censure brings into the open a lack of intellectual maturity and understanding of the issues for which this scholarly society stands since it reveals a gross misunderstanding of the place of Israel, Zionism and Judaism—all of which tend to get elided in the rhetorical swirl of the presentation of the issues and the rhetoric of justification. Always lurking behind the BDS movement is plain old-fashioned antisemitism; that is, the blaming of the Jews for

Fall 2016, No. 88 8 all the evils of the world, the misrepresentation of harsh political realities, and the gross sentimentalization of the Palestinian cause as a defenseless and colonized people subjected to westernized capitalist power. Not only is the history of the Arab and Muslim peoples in the territory of the Land of Israel reconstructed around a series of outright lies and fabricated distortions, but the long historical association between the People of Israel and the Land occluded or denied. I am appalled because the AAA ought to understand the nature of an ancient people’s right to self- determination, a right embedded in their millennia-long traditions, rituals and historical celebrations, to set those fundamental connections with the land and its symbolic meanings and replace it by a relatively recent assemblage of political myths—the self-conscious invention of a new kind of nationality and a new role as victims and passive players in their own history—cannot be countenanced. I am appalled by their misinterpretation of Zionism, treating it as though it were a single unchanging entity, in order to make it responsible for the unfortunate situation of the Arab inhabitants—mostly recent arrivals in the region and even more recently claimants to a separate identity from the previous categorization, such as part of Greater Syria, indicates anything but objectivity, knowledge and understanding of regional history and politics. Zionism goes back much further than the efforts of Herzl, Nordau and even Jabotinsky to resolve the so-called Jewish Question in late nineteenth century Europe, and has been dynamically reshaped in response to the Holocaust and the expulsion of Jews from North African and Middle Eastern countries. I am appalled by the misreading of both the Israeli state as a secular and dynamic society and the multiple strands of ethical and spiritual development within Judaism. I am appalled because this is not a matter of resisting criticism of Israel’s policies and deportment, but of holding Israel to impossible standards applied to no other country, asking Jews to be uniformly responsible for one government’s behavior, and overlooking the circumstances and contingencies of all parties in the Middle East conflict. Norman Simms, [email protected]

Rebecca T. Alpert Temple University Why I Support BDS

I support the Palestinian non-violent resistance movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions targeting organizations that supply Israel with weapons and technological support and all Israeli institutions (although not individuals) until such time as Israel ends its occupation of and settlement on Palestinian lands, the willful destruction of Palestinian homes and farms and businesses and cultural and educational institutions, and the unlawful torture and imprisonment of Palestinian people when they fight back. I do so based on the following premises: Because contemporary Zionists claim that Israel is a Jewish state and the homeland of all Jews, they speak in my name whether or not I live in Israel or identify as a Zionist. I do not believe that Jewish values of peace and justice are advanced by an ethno-cultural state that was founded on a false premise (“a land without people”) and refuses to provide equal rights to those hypothetically non-existent non-Jewish citizens. I feel called to challenge the idea that such a state is necessary to the existence of the Jewish people. As a Jew I have the right and obligation to do so. The sovereign state of Israel is a reality. It is also a powerful nation, well-funded by the United States (for the next ten years at 4 billion dollars annually) and unequivocally supported by our President and congress and both political parties. As a sovereign state, Israel acts with impunity, deaf to the censure of other nations around the world for its treatment of Palestinians. While Israel may have enemies, its right

Fall 2016, No. 88 9 to exist is not being challenged by other nations. Palestinians do not have a sovereign nation, power, or a standing army. There can be no question which group, Israel or the Palestinians, is the more powerful party in this conflict. Using non-violent means to persuade the government of Israel to change their practices is what I want to see Palestinians doing, and I stand in solidarity with them when they do. Antisemitism is a reality. Like other forms of illogical hatred (racism, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia) it needs to be monitored and publicly denounced. Although Zionists want to make Zionism and Judaism (and Israelis and Jews) equivalent, they are not the same thing. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Anti-Zionism is political opposition to Israel because of its occupation of Palestinian land and mistreatment of the Palestinian people, not irrational hatred of Jews. We need to be able to acknowledge the difference. The confusion of anti-Zionism and antisemitism may be attributed to the fact that the organized Jewish community has identified Zionism and support for the state of Israel as a requirement for being counted as a good Jew, a requirement I have come to reject. While it is no doubt true that people who harbor anti- Semitic tendencies may also oppose Israeli policies, it is not logical to conclude that everyone who opposes Israeli policies is also an antisemite. Many of us so-called antisemites would simply like to see Israel take responsibility for and change policies that have demeaned and destroyed another group—robbing them of their land and their freedom. BDS may not be a perfect way to call Israel to account. But I support this effort because it is non-violent and is calling attention to the plight of the Palestinians under Israeli rule, thus fulfilling my criteria of being in accord with the highest principles of Judaism: seeking peace and pursuing justice. Rebecca T. Alpert, [email protected]

Richard Libowitz Temple University AAA, BDS and Academic Freedom Academic freedom like other cherished rights is not absolute; public safety concerns are a positive limiting factor, while political suppression is a negative limiter. In recent years, so-called political correctness has affected the expression of ideas and been the catalyst for changes in public behavior and speech. Maligned by some, the movement was born from a desire for equality and fairness and, depending on the particular issue, has drawn support from both the right and left. Taken to an extreme, however, it risks creating a 1984 limitation of the permissible. Such is the case of the BDS movement, in which one land Israel and its people have been targeted for particular condemnation and isolation. While supporters of BDS have the right to criticize Israeli government policies, their efforts to limit academic freedom in the name of freedom seems the height or nadir of hypocrisy. One multi-party democratic government in the midst of monarchies, military regimes, theocracies and old-fashioned dictatorships. One state possessed of world famous universities, admission to which is available to all. A tiny nation, ranked among the world’s leaders in scientific, medical and technological innovations, sharing its discoveries with countries that refuse it diplomatic recognition. A land which admits to serious problems both within and beyond its borders, led by an administration about which the population has strong and conflicting opinions, and can express those opinions without fear of government reprisal. The Homeland of an ancient people, accepting among its citizenry adherents of many different faiths or no faith at all. Yet this one tiny nation is declared a pariah by those who remain deaf to cries coming from Europe, Africa, Asia, Central and South America. By a narrow margin, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) recently rejected a proposal to join the BDS boycott of Israeli universities and academicians, but declared that Israeli government policies and practices threaten academic freedom and human rights in the region. An internet search failed to uncover similar AAA statements or proposals for boycotts of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, or any

Fall 2016, No. 88 10 other country with a history of human rights violations or impingements on academic freedom. This silence questions the motivation behind the BDS efforts. Old-fashioned antisemitism may be replaced by terms like anti-Zionism and anti-Israel but the BDS campaign emits the same unmistakable smell. In the 1930s, as German universities dismissed Jewish professors and expelled Jewish students, few of the Aryan faculty objected, as they joined the Nazi Party. Three generations later, supporters of BDS ignore the terrorism of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah while demanding Israel be isolated from the righteous nations of the world. One wonders whether BDS advocates will also reject the scientific and technological breakthroughs made by those same Israelis, such as the microprocessor, the flash drive or medicines used to treat multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and other maladies. Or does the hypocrisy run so deep that BDS supporters will use the creations while cursing their creators? Richard Libowitz, [email protected]

David Patterson University of Texas at Dallas

Are We Going to Do This Again? A Response to the AAA and the BDS Movement in Academia In Stanley Kramer’s film Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), based on the Nazi war crimes Justice Trail held in 1947, there is a scene in which the defense attorney cross examines a young woman whom the Reich had accused of “inappropriate intimacy” with an older Jewish man. The defendant Ernst Janning had presided over her trial. His defense attorney grills the young woman, all but accusing her of violating the race laws and ultimately bringing her to tears. Suddenly the defendant Janning stands up and cries out to his attorney, “Are we going to do this again?!” This scene comes to mind as I reflect on the American Anthropological Association’s recent deliberation on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanction Movement against the Jewish State. And it is against the Jewish State, and not this or that Israeli government; it is opposed to any haven for the Jews in a world long bent on the slaughter of the Jews. The judges at the Justice Trial were highly educated men, many of whom had been university professors. Indeed, the involvement of academics in the annihilation of the Jews is well known (see, for example, Max Weinreich’s Hitler’s Professors). In 1939 Dr. Walter Schultze opened the meeting of the National Socialist Association of University Lecturers by extolling the Nazi Party. Eight of the fourteen men at the Wannsee Conference convened on 20 January 1942 to discuss the logistics of the annihilation of the Jews held doctorate degrees. At one time or another all four commanders of the killing units that followed the German army to the East held doctorate degrees. One also recalls that the Nazis’ first measure against German Jews was the boycott of their businesses on 1 April 1933. This is the unavoidable context for the academic involvement in BDS. Chief among the BDS movement’s founding leaders is Omar Barghouti, a Ph.D. student at Tel Aviv University. The Jerusalem Center for Publics Affairs has documented Barghouti’s assertion that the ultimate aim of BDS is the destruction of the Jewish State. In a lecture he delivered at the University of California at Riverside in January 2014 Barghouti accused Israeli soldiers of “hunting children” and “Israel and its lobby groups” of controlling Congress and the media. The accusation of hunting children is an obvious reiteration of the blood libel, and the claim that Israel controls Congress and the media is an obvious reiteration of the world Jewish conspiracy, both of which were exploited by the Nazis. Barghouti here expresses BDS’s thinly veiled antisemitic agenda: the demonization of the Jews and the “moral” necessity of the destruction of the Jewish State—all in the name of human rights. The grim irony is that most academics reject any divine commandment that might provide an absolute ground for human rights. The subsequent grim reality is that the AAA’s mere discussion of BDS, which is increasingly typical of academia, reeks of narcissistic outrage, self-indulgent self-righteousness, and increasingly

Fall 2016, No. 88 11 blatant Jew hatred. History may not repeat itself, but it haunts us with a question that rises up from the ashes of the body of Israel. And so I end these reflections by putting a question both to myself and to my fellow academics: Are we going to do this again? David Patterson, [email protected]

Joshua Schwartz Bar Ilan University

"I Never Apologize for the Truth" (Kinky Friedman)

I teach in the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, i.e. "Land of Israel", not "Land of Israel/Palestine" Studies and I make no apology for this. Writing in English, I write about Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine period and I make no apology for this. Writing in Hebrew I will write Eretz Yisrael and make no apology for this. I write about Judaea and Samaria. These terms in my writing do not describe "sacred landscapes" nor are they political terms, unless we are talking about the politics of Hellenistic- Roman-Byzantine Palestine. They are geographical terms useful and necessary for one who studies historical geography of ancient Israel (or ancient Palestine). I use these terms just as I will write Peraea, a phrase referring to the Jewish parts of ancient Transjordan, a phrase that does not seem to bother the Jordanians. I am an academic "dinosaur". I am in the mid-7th decade of my life with almost 40 years of university teaching experience. I do not discuss politics in the classroom. I do not think that it is the "role of an academic society to engage in political issues and/or proclaim moral standards," as the American Anthropological Association does. My role in academic society is to educate my students to be better scholars, to think critically in the disciplines I teach and to instill in them a love for those subjects that will hopefully accompany them beyond their university years. This is not to say that I do not have or express political views or that I do not proclaim moral standards. This is not to say that I am blind to inequality or oppression, local or worldwide. I express my views on all of this, though, outside the university. My university standing or affiliation is irrelevant in these matters. I believe in academic freedom. That is an absolute belief. Academic freedom, though, is not the same as freedom of speech. I must be allowed to pursue my discipline without interference, local or international, without threat of sanction or boycott and that goes for the professor of physics, psychology and French literature in Israel. That is academic freedom. That does not mean though that my classroom, department, faculty or university is the correct forum for any discussion beyond the necessary pursuits and endeavors of an academic and intellectual community, and that does not include personal politics. I am also lucky. BDS is not much of an issue in my fields of study. Journals and scholars that deal with the ancient world or ancient Israel tend to stick to topic, although there are occasional exceptions. I am aware that others in Israeli academia are not so lucky and pursue research in fields face the threat of BDS. For the American Anthropological Association and kindred professional academic organizations who espouse a more pro-active hands-on philosophy when it comes to Israel/Palestine (and usually only on that), I would suggest that they tend to their own gardens first. There is enough there to keep them busy. Joshua Schwartz, [email protected]

Fall 2016, No. 88 12 Gudrun (Eli) Lier University of Johannesburg, SA

South Africa’s Boycott of Israel’s Schools of Higher Education On 9 July 2005, the Palestinian-led “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel” movement was launched. Eleven years later, on July 14 2016, South Africa celebrated what was referred to as a successful international non-violent BDS boycott of Israel. This celebration coincided with an in-depth article by Stanley Cohen in which he described the BDS as “a war Israel can't win” [emphasis added]. The contradiction between the celebration of a non-violent boycott and what Cohen describes as a war typically reflects the fallacy of South Africa’s apartheid metaphor in its application to the boycott of Israel’s schools of higher education. Following Israel’s reoccupation of the West Bank in 2002, Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for similar broad boycotts and divestment initiatives to be implemented against Israel as those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. The orchestration of the BDS boycott of Israel became ostensible in South Africa from 2009 onwards, when the South African Human Sciences Research Council commissioned an official report in which it declared that Israel, by its policies and practices, is guilty of the crime of apartheid. In September 2010, more than 200 prominent South African academics supported Tutu’s petition to end University of Johannesburg (UJ)'s former ties with the Ben-Gurion University (BGU) whose research relationship with the formerly all-white Rand Afrikaans University (RAU) under South Africa's apartheid system dates back to 1987. The censure was based on a comparative equation between RAU’s co-operation with apartheid and the active choice of Israeli universities to be an intimate part of the Israeli regime, which was denounced as an apartheid state. In 2012, the revolutionary decision by the University of Johannesburg to terminate its relations with Israel’s BCU was endorsed by the SRC of Wits University and in 2014 the University of Cape Town joined the academic boycott, followed in May 2015 by five more SRCs, the University of South Africa‚ Cape Peninsula University of Technology‚ Durban University of Technology‚ Mangosuthu University of Technology and the University of the Western Cape. The American Anthropological Association (AAA)’s resolve to boycott Israel’s academic institutions can reasonably be linked to the effective use of boycotts against apartheid South Africa. Although the boycott should in real terms only apply to academic institutions, the indirect coercion is for scholars to participate in amplifying the pressure against Israel by not accepting Israeli grants, attending conferences in Israel, or publishing in Israeli journals. Several distinguished Israeli academics as well as Jewish academics and journalists living in the diaspora took the AAA’s position as an opportune means to affect change in Israel by criticizing Israel’s stance in Middle East politics. In the South African context, the pressure is applied from governmental structures by way of auditing the investment funds of universities and service providers to ensure that companies, which violate the BDS call and are complicit in the Israeli Occupation, are excluded from investment funds and service contracts. Nonetheless, there are those among the academia who believe that “the morality of reprisals under the banner of correctness and morality” should be questioned and deliberated before implementing political agendas and resolutions. Academic professionality, as applied to scrutinize extremist attitudes, should not be compromised by societal pressure. The non-violent boycott used by South African universities to war against Israel’s schools of higher education may ultimately prove to be a war that cuts its own flesh. Was not the now forfeited water purification project with the BGU of manifest benefit to South Africans? Gudrun (Eli) Lier, [email protected]

Fall 2016, No. 88 13 Zev Garber Los Angeles Valley College

BDS Rhetoric: Argumentum ad Hitlerum “Love for all humanity” is an inspirational behind the AAA boycott resolution and advisory against the State of Israel’s governmental policy towards the “occupied” Palestinians on its pre and post-1967 borders. The ground upon which it stands – not the Land of Israel’s Third Commonwealth – is soft, yielding a confusing message leading to irreparable damage. Ab initio, the problem lies in the quagmire of bureaucratic protocol, a three-headed behemoth calling for an unbridled response. 1. Academic Boycotts. Academic societies are foremost committed, and, I might add, legally responsible, to the discipline of its mandate and not redeploy itself as a moral, ethical, social group of academics seeking and proclaiming justice in God’s tarnished acres near and far. So the American Academy of Religion (AAR), Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), and the National Association of Professors of Hebrew (NAPH) meet annually together and promote hundreds of session devoted to the study of Religion, Bible, Hebrew text, culture, history, language and related issues without a nod or wink “to finding solutions to human and social problems, to giving voice to the underserved and to serving as a guardian of human rights.” The no-nonsense, politically active mother lode professorial organization, American Association of American Professors, defends unapologetically unhindered free speech and teachers’ rights but stands in opposition to academic boycotts based on its long-standing commitment to the free exchange of ideas as a matter of principle. Its position on the Israeli-Palestinian matsav can be adduced from its 2005Committee report, On Academic Boycotts. We especially oppose selective academic boycotts that entail an ideological litmus test. We understand that such selective boycotts may be intended to preserve academic exchange with those more open to the views of boycott proponents, but we cannot endorse the use of political or religious views as a test of eligibility for participation in the academic community. Nonetheless it is open to alternative means, less inimical to the principle of academic freedom, to pursue critical issues related to perceived oppressive policies towards the Palestinian people and destructive to the Israeli Jews by expansionist Zionist ideology and government. A collegial nudge to AAA advisory for individuals to act their conscience. 2. Land. AAA willful decision to tie its academic credibility to the broader boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement proclaims it an endorser to the claim that the Zionist State of Israel contributed and supported by the Israeli university and academy has usurped Palestinian rights, colonize and occupied their land, disenfranchise its scholars and institutions of scholarship (including, Palestinian archaeology), is responsible for merciless carnage of its hospitals, schools, places of worship during “Operation Protective Edge,” and so forth. In sum, Israeli academic institutions have been directly and indirectly complicit in the Israeli state’s systematic maintenance of the occupation and denial of basic rights to Palestinians, by providing planning, policy, and technological expertise for furthering Palestinian dispossession, destruction, and death. I disagree. It is a Palestinian “Chosen Land” position exhibiting reductio ad absurdum. For example, Israeli scholar Nili Wazana, All the Boundaries of the Land: The Promised Land in Biblical Thought in Light of the Ancient Near East (Eisenbrauns, 2013; and reviewed by me in CBQ 77.2, 359-361) expounds on land claim and rights. The Hebrew Bible discusses the patriarchal promise of receiving territory; it explicates the geographic data of the “Covenant of the Pieces” (Gen 15: 18-27 in relation to Exod 23:31, Deut 1:7, 11:24) and sets a centralized view of Israel as a world power. Further, it delves into the ideal limits of the Holy Land (Num 34:1-12) whose various boundaries and geographical terms of the land of Canaan present uncertainty in interpretation and composition (see Josh 15: 1-4). Radical re-figuration of the tribes and boundaries of the land of Israel are depicted in Ezek 47:13-48:29; and mirrors the extremities of the kingdoms of David and Jeroboam (2 Sam 8:5-12; 2 Kings 14:25). Conquest of the land depicted in Josh 1-12 and particularly the narrative in Josh 10-12 depicts in part Deuteronomistic influence (Josh 10: 40-42; 11:16-17). Josh 13:1-6 posits a post-exilic incentive charge to settle in the unconquered portions of the land to fulfill a pre-exilic divine promise; and Josh 13:7- 21:45 in categories of original jurisdictional taxation and later political sovereign overlord and vassal king

Fall 2016, No. 88 14 relationship leveled in religious ideology. Finally, indirect depictions and associations to the Promise Land in the Tanakh, such as, they “spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin until Rehob, at Lebo (‘at the entrance of’) Hamath” (Num 13:21) and the border descriptions of the territory of Eber-hanahar of the fifth Persian province (mid fifth century BCE) projected back to the period of the United Monarchy. In sum, the Zionist idea emanates from Scriptures and not the reverse. Factual history not divine theology nor victimhood sympathy justifies the return of the Jews to their historic homeland. Palestinian people, statehood, independence are the product of the successful Israeli blitzkrieg Six Day War victory. 3. Accountability. I take seriously and respond seriously to the charges that the State of Israel and its institutions discriminate, mistreat and persecute its Palestinian population, Christian and Muslim (see Iggeret 86 (2014) [“Enemies: Bridging the Divide,” p. 11 and “Zionide,” pp. 13-16]). I find abhorrent the comment of Curtis Marez, the president of the American Studies Association, who singled out Israel because “one has to start somewhere.” Not one condemnation of Government-State egregious behavior in Africa, Latin America, Europe, China, Russia, Middle East, including, assault on academic freedom and extreme restriction on the beleaguered professorial rank by Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government after the failed coup attempt in Turkey (July 2016). No public condemnation of Black Lives Matter (BLM) platform that accuses Israel of being an apartheid state and practicing genocidal activity against Palestinians and by association Blacks. I find the campus campaign of BDS disruptive and repulsive; the claims of murdering Palestinian children and poisoning public wells during Ramadan absolutely unfounded; Canaan and biblical Land of Israel Palestinian as were the prophets and Jesus de-facto false. Further, on the horizon, a two-step political ridden agenda of the BDS movement to seek “a just peace in Israel and Palestine” in academic societies by 1) establishing “Peace in Palestine” caucus 2) leading to proposing a resolution to condemn the Jewish state. Individual session of misguided information sharing I can handle but stated in the name of a respectable society of scholars I cannot. For the sake of Zion, I will not be silent in blindsided politico-scholarship, a switch and bait argumentum ad Hitlerum. Zev Garber, [email protected]

II. Briefly Noted Two Jewish Tongues Naomi Brenner, Lingering Bilingualism: Modern Hebrew & Yiddish Literatures in Contact. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2016. 292p index. ISBN 978-08156-34323-2 (cloth). ISBN 978-0-8156-3409- 6 (paperback). ISBN 978-0-8156-5343-1 (e-book)

Naomi Brenner (Ohio State University) offers some excellent insight in how modern Hebrew and Yiddish interacted in the last couple of centuries. Hebrew, the sacred language of Jewish belief and practice, in whose kedushah the moral boundaries of the Jewish community are shaped by loyalty to the Dual Torah. Yiddish, a Jewish language of medieval Germanic origin, infused with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Slavic words, the mammaloshen of millions of Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe before WW II and the death camps of Nazi Europe. Brenner explains adroitly and tersely the centrality of Hebrew and Yiddish in forging Geisteisgeschichte and identity of the Jewish people living in the groyser shtot, kleiner shtetl, davening shtiblekh (Europe) and Yishuv (Palestine). She discusses Hebrew and Yiddish language, literature, culture; text (mainly poetry, fiction) centered and periodicals (e.g., the interwar Berlin based bilingual publication, Milgroym [Y] – Rimon [H]); original composition and interpretation, and numerous samples highlighting the rules of Hebrew-Yiddish engagement Brenner’s intention is not to promote a standard lexicology though some may read her this way. Though she understands the dynamics of language study and exchange, she argues that social, political and psychological influences play an impressive role in Hebrew-Yiddish linguistic and literary contact. Her survey of Hebrew-Yiddish bilingualism is necessarily significant to (1) reaffirm the importance of language bilingualism in the life of the people and (2) to balance the prevailing Western academic reading of Jewish languages. A rewarding learning experience in Hebrew-Yiddish cultural- linguistics.

Fall 2016, No. 88 15

Mein Shtot Vilna Abraham Karpinowitz, Vilna My Vilna, translated by Helen Mintz. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2016. 183p. Glossary, Bibliography. ISBN 978-0-8156-3426-3 (cloth). ISBN 978-0-8156-1060-1 (paperback). ISBN 978-0-8156-5352-3 (e-book).

Seventy-five years since the start of liquidation of Jewish Vilna (June 1941), nusekh Vilne remains a source of admiration, fascination and controversy. Until the twentieth century, few Jewish population centers in Eastern Europe cities could rival Vilna’s rabbinic, cultural, and political centers; birthplace of beginnings and achievements. Luminaries such as the Vilna Gaon, Yehudah Leib Gordon, and Avraham Mapu called it home. The socialist Bund, the General Jewish Worker’s Union and the religious Zionist Mizrahi party were birthed here. Haskalah and YIVO were centrifugal in Vilna’s Hebrew and Yiddish landscape. Arguably deserving of the accolade, “the Jerusalem of Lithuania,” there are multiple books, treatises, anthologies, songs, and other outlets celebrating the pride and passion of Vilna’s cross-grouping yiddishkeit and no-nonsense do-ism of the folk/ `amkha. The work of biographers and historians, novelists and filmmakers have contributed to making Vilna synonymous with Jewish learning, tradition, pedigree. In present-day Vilnius, capital of Lithuania, Jewish memory not living is real-life and decimated in the ashes of the khurban, 500 years of Yiddish culture, literature, and life. In Vilner Yiddish, Avrum Karpinowitz reconstructs smithereens of Vilna between WW I and WW II by portraying the turbulent life of the poor and disenfranchised Jews of his city of birth. The front matter of 37 pages (foreword by Justin Cammy and introduction by Helen Mintz) discusses critically the ins and outs of a multi-talented and complex Vilna, exhibiting a mix of historical data, commentary on literature, and psychological insight. This is followed by short portraits of fishwives and cobblers, thieves and prostitutes, personal memoirs, and memories of the decimated family owned public theatre. Despite hardships and obstacles, Karpinowitz portrays full-bodied Jewish life suggesting that the glory of Jewish Vilna is in the people. Mintz’ readable translation of Karpinowitz idiomatic Yiddish indeed shows that life is with the people. An important source book on an acclaimed 20th century brazen broker and shaker.

The Bund Bernard Goldstein, Twenty Years with the Jewish Labor Bund, translated by Marvin S. Zuckerman. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2016. 424 pp. Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies series. Glossary, bibliography, Index. ISBN 9781557537492 (paperback). ISBN 9781612494463.

Bernard Goldstein’s memoir on Warsaw Jewish life of interwar Poland is distinguished by a dual purpose. Vignettes from his life as a Bundist labor organizer and head of its Warsaw self-defense militia portray secular Jewish existence before the catastrophic onslaught of WW II as one of literary activity, political journalism, successful political struggle, immersion in modern politics, fights for worker rights and benefits, a strong social-democratic labor movement, creation of a secular school system in Yiddish, and a youth movement that later provided the heroic fighters for the courageous Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Second, original introduction by Dr. Emanuel Sherer, General Secretary of the Jewish Labor Bund, and preface and annotated notes by translator Marv Zuckerman (Los Angeles Valley College) describes the new secular, socialist culture being fostered by the Bund. Collectively, their comments are motivated by the disposition that Goldstein describes the everyday Jewish life without prejudgment or bias. Bund during this period was fighting for the embattled Jewish poor, suffering from both economic and ethnic attacks. In fact, Bund was encouraging the folk to fight for themselves, organizing them in unions and in self- defense militias. Of interest, collaboration between Jewish and Polish activists, both in union activism and in fighting the violent right-wing opponents and left-wing Communist ideologues. The result is an analytical understanding of the historic role played by the Jewish Labor Bund in the folk culture and the

Fall 2016, No. 88 16 survival of the people. It delivers an unparalleled street-level view of vibrant Jewish socialism in Poland between the two world wars. Major shapers and shakers, ideology and issues, movements, organizations and political parties, events and treaties are offered in 400 pages, which provides a reliable reference work. Highly recommended. Gut oysgebrawtn, khaver Moyshe!

Divine Gift Jon D. Levenson, The Love of God: Divine Gift, Human Gratitude, and Mutual Faithfulness in Judaism. Princeton University Press, 2016. 235p. Index. ISBN 978-0-691-16429-8. Levenson (Harvard University) assesses the image and value of the love of God component in the basic creed of the Shema (“Hear O’ Israel”) neither as a romantic sentiment nor imposed legalism. He reads the theology at the center of ”You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut 6:5) as a deeply personal two-way covenantal relationship between God and Israel sealed in divine affection, concern, tenderness and reciprocated by a people’s gratitude to salvific deliverance. The book’s five well composed chapters interact with the Deuteronomic text. By maintaining a transcendent-historical voice in arcane biblical texts, Levenson’s methodology entails a dialectical movement between synchronic and diachronic reading, and between the ancient Near Eastern world and the world of Late Antiquity in which Judaism as we know it took shape (chapters 1-3). Medieval spiritual thought and discipline (Baḥya ibn Paquda, Maimonides, Ḥasdai Crescas, Joseph Albo), and contemporary enlightenment thinking (Buber, Rosenzweig) which expand a parochial Hebraic-Judaic worldview (chapters 4-5) conclude the volume. Notable is the discussion on theodicy, covenantal erotica, love of group paramount over individual even the just but absent are halakhic issues flowing from choosing martyrdom as the ultimate love imperative. Notwithstanding, an admirable and novel view to explain the tenacity of the Jewish continuity and survival.

Biblical Hebrew Software Michael Williams, The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users. Medina, OH: Zondervan Academic, 2015. 144p. ISBN: 978-0-310-52130-3 (softcover). Michael Williams has spent the last two decades of teaching biblical Hebrew (and counting) at Calvin Theological Seminary in a variety of formats, including, the use of Bible software. The Internet explosion in the computer age has changed for many the traditional way of teaching biblical Hebrew as noted in annual sessions of NAPH on the teaching of biblical Hebrew (BH), e.g., Using Bible Software to Understand Biblical Texts (see below 2016 NAPH Annual Meeting, San Antonio). However, the aleph- bet of computerized biblical Hebrew is not simply maneuvered. Confusion generated by computer telecommunications do set in. Thus, Williams’ primer geared as a user-friendly guide to the grammatical exegesis used in Bible software. The author’s intention is not a full blown introduction to learning BH nor is it geared to complete ignorance of BH fundamentals. Rather it is midway between the two polarities. Williams list and instructs in database information responding to a plea for pragmatism: curtail the details, simplify the basics, illustrate with design, cite biblical examples, and pepper with scriptural hermeneutics (Tanakh and NT).For textualists, simplification alone will not stay the storm; and for some Christian theology is distracting (typical, personal God, Yahweh and Jesus extracted for the Ketib-Qere of the Tetragrammaton). Still a useful manual to navigate terms and technology in the application of BH.

Bible Devotions Milton Eng and Lee M. Fields, eds., Devotions on the Hebrew Bible: 54 Reflections to Inspire and Instruct. Medina, OH: Zondervan Academic, 2015. 186p. Index. ISBN: 978-0-310-49453-9 (softcover).

Fall 2016, No. 88 17 Bible study and devotion are core classes in Christian seminaries and Church services. In the Anglo-Saxon world the passages of Scriptures are transmitted in English and not in original tongues, such as, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, Syriac and on. Scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures believe that the original Hebrew no matter how accurate it is translated is the key to offering a dvar Torah or transmitting the “Word of the Lord.” Editors Eng (William Patterson University and Pillar College) and Fields (Mid- Atlantic Christian University) hope to fill that lacuna. Intended as a resource for students, professors, and pastors, this volume provides 54 devotions written by 38 scholars. Selected verses reflect either practical application or spiritual devotion and reflect an array of features, including, grammatical, lexical, rhetorical, sociohistorical, and linguistic. Annotated entries, vary in length, encapsulate biblical Hebrew savvy and Christian pietism. For the most part, the chosen verses are interpretive guidelines to living the biblical directive in today’s cosmopolitan hustle-and-bustle world. The Christological undertone may be obtrusive in a secular and/or non- Christian seminary setting but this ought not distract from the scope of this venture. I, a practicing Jewish academic, am learning Christian Tanak sermonettes extra ecclesiam. The rest is commentary.

III. Elie Wiesel (1928-2016) Z”L

The death of Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, 87, author of "Night." His death was on Shabbat Shelach (26 Sivan 5776) was announced motsaei Shabbat, July 2, 2016 by Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial. Numerous obituaries and opinion pieces on the life and impact of Elie Wiesel z”l have appeared, including the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/world/europe/elie-wiesel-auschwitz-survivor-and-nobel-pe ace- prize-winner-dies-at-87.html?_r=0), and the Jerusalem Post, Elie Wiesel (1928-2016). His impact on promoting awareness of the Shoah and in advancing the study of the Shoah is acknowledged by all. My impression on Wiesel’s contribution to Shoah Studies is published in Iggeret 87 (“Elie Wiesel: “Nocturnal Silence”) 3-4. An insightful critique on Wiesel’s choice of the word “Holocaust” by Z. Garber and B. Zuckerman to describe the murder of European Jewry during WWII is featured in LA Times article, April 1994.

RELIGION / JOHN DART : Scholars Seek Substitute for the Word 'Holocaust' The systematic Nazi massacre of 6 million Jews during World War II was a crime as horrific as they come, a… ARTICLES.LATIMES.COM

Quotables on the Death of Elie Wiesel "The state of Israel and the Jewish people express sorrow over the death of Elie Wiesel. Elie, a master of words, gave expression to the victory of the human spirit over cruelty and evil with his unusual personality and captivating stories. In the darkness of the Holocaust when our brothers and sisters perished — the six million — Elie Wiesel served as a ray of light and an example of humanity that believes in the goodness of man. Elie's prolific creations do not just reflect the Holocaust but also the hope and optimism against

Fall 2016, No. 88 18 the darkness of Auschwitz. Jerusalem — the eternal capital of Israel — represented to him our ability to rise from the bottom and reach new heights."— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "Tonight we bid farewell to a hero of the Jewish People, and a giant of all humanity. Elie Wiesel, of blessed memory, embodied the determination of the human spirit to overcome the darkest of evils, and survive against all the odds. His life was dedicated to the fight against all hatred, and for the sake of man as created in the image of God —he was a guide for us all. One of the Jewish people's greatest sons, who touched the hearts of so many, and helped us to believe in forgiveness, in life, and in the eternal bond of the Jewish people. May his memory be a blessing, everlastingly engraved in the heart of the nation." — Israeli President Reuven Rivlin "Wiesel left his mark on humanity through preserving and upholding the legacy of the Holocaust and delivering a message of peace and respect between people worldwide. He endured the most serious atrocities of mankind — survived them and dedicated his life to conveying the message of 'Never Again.' I had the honor and privilege to personally thank him for his numerous years of work and for saving the world from apathy when I gave him the Presidential Medal on behalf of the State of Israel. May his memory be a blessing to us all." — Former Israeli President Shimon Peres "Elie (Wiesel) was not just the world's most prominent Holocaust survivor, he was a living memorial. After we walked together among the barbed wire and guard towers of Buchenwald where he was held as a teenager and where his father perished, Elie spoke words I've never forgotten — 'Memory has become a sacred duty of all people of goodwill.' Upholding that sacred duty was the purpose of Elie's life. Along with his beloved wife Marion and the foundation that bears his name, he raised his voice, not just against anti-Semitism, but against hatred, bigotry and intolerance in all its forms. He implored each of us, as nations and as human beings, to do the same, to see ourselves in each other and to make real that pledge of 'never again.'" — President Barack Obama (He exemplified) existence of the Jewish people and the development of the Jewish creation. As a Holocaust survivor he dedicated his life to bearing witness to it and he did so through his extraordinary talent as a writer and speaker. Elie believed till his final day that the Holocaust must be studied and remembered as a unique event to the Jewish people that has a universal message to the entire world." — Chairman of the Yad Vashem Avner Shalev "Elie (Wiesel) shouldered the blessing and the burden of survival. In words and deeds, he bore witness and built a monument to memory to teach the living and generations to come the perils of human indifference. As he often said, one person of integrity can make a difference. For so many, he was that difference including at the dedication of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1993 when he urged me to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia; at the White House Millennium Lecture Hillary invited him to give; and in all his wonderful books and lectures." — Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

IV. Professor Rabbi Jacob Neusner Z”L (1932-2016)

Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History and Theology of Judaism and Senior Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Theology at Bard College, Jacob Neusner died Shabbat Shuva (Vayelech, 6 Tishrei 5776), October 8, 2016, at the age of 84, at his home in Rhinebeck, N.Y. His death is attributed to Parkinson’s disease which affected him for many years. Longtime member of NAPH, Professor Neusner earned the PhD from Columbia University and his rabbinical degree from the Jewish Theological Seminary. He began teaching at Bard College in 1994 and also taught at Dartmouth College, Brown University, and the University of South Florida. His A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai (1962) marked the beginning of an astonishingly productive scholarly career. Over the next half-century, he has written or edited more than 950 books (Wikipedia; spinoffs aside, more likely 300 volumes) devoted to history, source analysis, comparative religion and legal theory. Included here are the more than 50 volumes of the Yerushalmi and

Fall 2016, No. 88 19 Bavli that he and his students edited and translated. Also, less known, but important works related to Jesus interfaith dialogue, American Judaism (fellowship, practice, belief), Shoah, and Zionism. Neusner is deservingly recognized as a pioneer in the academic study and teaching of Judaism and religion studies in general and rabbinic literature in particular. Neusner’s innovative form-critical approach to rabbinic texts demonstrate that rabbinical texts reflect a particular place, time, and origin of author (local Judaisms) rather than components of a singular religious movement (generic Judaism). Neusner’s ventures in bridging the divide between Judaism of folk and yeshiva (laerning) and the language of the academy (learning) and other religions is dutifully acknowledged as well as his incomparable number of publications (books, articles, reviews opinion pieces, and on), conferences (participation and sponsorship), global and local outreach, and support extended to aspiring and established scholars alike. However, Neusner’s scholarship and persona are not without criticism. “He is perhaps most widely known for his irascible, sometimes quite nasty and often pugnacious personality, his famous excoriating reviews, sometimes book-length critiques, and his fallings-out with almost every institution he worked in, almost every teacher who taught him, many of his students — as well as the errors that scar his many translations and publications” (Shaul Magid, review of A. Hughes, Jacob Neusner, An American Jewish Iconoclast [NYU Press, 2016], Tablet Magazine online, August 23, 2016). My assessment of Jacob Neusner’s scholarship and character can be glimpsed from my RBL review: Zev Garber, review of Alan J. Avery Peck, Bruce Chilton, William Scott Green, and Gary G. Porton, eds., A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2016). I commented that Jacob Neusner is a no nonsense paragon of learning; I am a recipient of his generosity, contributor to his scholarly projects, but no amen-sayer. Neusner acknowledged my review and in his last communication to me he thanked me for making his day. Said in May his soul be bound in) ﬨנצבה .life and so it may it be remembered for eternity. zikhrono li-vrakhah the bound of eternal life; and his laerning learning continue in the Academy on High.

V. Kadima Professor Cynthia Miller-Naudé (University of the Free State, SA) has completed her two-year tenure as President of NAPH. Her counsel, direction, program involvement, and other chores, speak well of her leadership. Nourished at UW-Madison but her wisdom is now out of Africa. Todah rabbah v- yasher koach. President elect is Professor Esther Raizen. A native of Israel, Raizen is associate dean for research in the College of Liberal Arts and former chair of the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. She specializes in Hebrew language pedagogy and has been an early adopter of computer technology for the Hebrew-language classroom and a pioneer in the production of open educational resources for Hebrew-language instruction. Kadimah, Esther.

Zev Garber, Los Angeles Valley College, [email protected]

Fall 2016, No. 88 20 Meetings and Conferences NAPH Annual Meeting in Conjunction with AAR/SBL

Minutes of the 2016 NAPH Business Meeting San Antonio November 21, 2016

1. Gilead Morahg, NAPH Executive Vice President, welcomed all present and presented the following report: I am pleased to report that our Association continues to be solvent and continues to carry out its mission effectively in all our areas of endeavor. One reason for this is what’s happening with our membership roster. As you may recall, in the past several years I have been reporting on a steady decline in NAPH membership, which, last year reached a low point of 385 members, a drop from 394 and a far cry from our record number of 444. You may also recall that I reported last year on a new effort to reach out to colleagues who are not NAPH members and to encourage them to join our association. I’m pleased to report that we have seen a good measure of success in this effort. The number of NAPH members right now is 411, which is an increase of 26 members over last year and may be a sign that we have managed to stop the downward trend and perhaps even reverse it—despite the declining enrollments in our field. Another source of solid income are the royalties from subscription services based Hebrew Studies articles that have been downloaded during the year. Income from subscriptions this year increased by 16% over last year. Clearly more people than ever are drawing on the articles we publish. For this we continue to owe a huge debt of gratitude to Serge Frolov on the outstanding work he and his board have been doing. Unfortunately, Serge is not able to be here today, so I will be presenting his report after mine. The 2016 volume of Hebrew Studies has just gone to the printer, on schedule, as always. And it will be mailed to all members after Thanksgiving. Working with Serge is a true a pleasure as is working with Rick Painter, our superb managing editor. Another, more modest but still significant source of income is the NAPH summer conference. The generous support we have been receiving from our host institutions combined with the registration fees paid by the growing number of conference participants have been leaving us with a surplus after all our conference expenses are paid off. The 2016 summer conference at Brown University was another great success with close to 180 participants. Zafi Lidovsky Cohen did an excellent job in putting together the program, together with the professional subcommittees chaired by Shmuel Bolozky and Esther Borochovsky Bar Aba (Language and Linguistics), Nitza Krohn (Pedagogy), Itamar Kislev (Biblical Literature), Haim Weiss (Post Biblical Literature) and Vered Shemtov (Modern Hebrew Literature). There will be a full report on the conference in the Iggeret, but I don’t want to deny myself the pleasure of acknowledging the outstanding work of Ruth Ben-Yehuda Adler and David Jacobson, the conference co-chairs and most gracious local hosts. The schedule of future summer conferences is as follows: 2017: NYU on June 27-29 2018: University of Amsterdam 2019: Boston University The new issue of our newsletter, Iggeret, is ready, due to Zev Garber’s usual diligent work. As always, it will be published online and sent to members by email after this meeting, so the information will be up to date. Thanks to Zev also for arranging the program for the NAPH sessions at SBL. We will have his report on both. But thank you, Zev, in advance. We also published a new issue of our online

Fall 2016, No. 88 21 journal Hebrew Higher Education. The editor, Adina Ofek, should be recognized for her excellent work in putting this volume together. Once again, she was assisted by Orna Goldman, who did the proofreading as well as the journal layout. And, as always, I would also like to express my appreciation for the work of our Associate Director, Jared Henson, who continues to do outstanding work in running our day-to-day operations. This is an even numbered calendar year, so we will be voting on a new slate of nominees for the NAPH Advisory Board at the end of this meeting. But it is also a year of transition in which several of our officers have announced that they are stepping down, so the nominating committee is proposing their replacements as part of this year’s slate. Serge Frolov has announced that, after five years of service, he is stepping down from his position as editor of Hebrew Studies. As we all know, Serge has done an exemplary job in maintaining – and elevating-- the high standards of the journal which has now attained universal recognition as a leading scholarly journal in all areas of Hebrew Studies. We all owe him a profound debt of gratitude. As his replacement Serge has recommended Professor Pamela Barmash of Washington University, with whom he has worked closely while she served as a book review editor of the journal. The nominating committee reviewed this recommendation carefully and endorsed it unanimously. In another transition, Adina Ofek is stepping down as editor of Hebrew Higher Education. Adina served in this position for over a decade and during this period transformed HHE to a first rate professional publication. Compiling a strong compendium of articles on the methodology and pedagogy of teaching Hebrew in American institutions of higher education is not an easy task, and Adina lived up to it year after year. She, too is owed a profound debt of gratitude by our members. The nominating committee is recommending Professor Nitza Krohn of the Jewish Theological Seminary as the new editor of HHE. Nitza is an authority on Hebrew education and has been an active member of the HHE editorial board for a good number of years. Our Eta Bet Rho Hebrew Honors Society Coordinator, David Baker, has also asked to be replaced. The nominating committee is recommending Professor Hélène Dallaire of the Denver Theological Seminary as the new EBR coordinator. And, in yet another transition, I will be stepping down from my position in NAPH at the end of next year. I have been preparing for this for quite a while and have felt that the end of 2017 would be the appropriate time. By then I will be 75 and will have served as the NAPH Executive Vice President for 35 years. I believe the time has come. During the past several years I worked steadily to ensure that the administrative structure of NAPH will remain solid and the leadership structure is secure. I have no doubt that our association will continue to flourish and I look forward to watching others do the work. 2. Serge Frolov, Hebrew Studies editor, submitted the following report: It was an honor and a privilege for me to serve as Editor of Hebrew Studies over the last five years. However, as a strong believer in term limits I am convinced that it is time for me to move on, and I hope that Dr. Pamela Barmash, the journal’s current Book Review Editor whom I have recommended as my replacement, will accept the position and will be confirmed in it. Over the last five years, Hebrew Studies has been going strong, and this year is no exception. Although the total number of full-scale articles per volume has remained more or less unchanged, at 17 to 20 (plus, in three out of five volumes, an NAPH symposium), the journal’s heft has been steadily growing: for example, this year’s volume will be just under 500 pages long (which is exactly where we would like it to be) and the articles and symposium papers will total about 165,000 words. We have been steadily improving our coverage by subject area, although the problem of submissions on the rabbinic and

Fall 2016, No. 88 22 medieval periods being few and far between has persisted throughout. It should also be mentioned that Hebrew Studies is increasingly becoming a venue for the discussion of hot topics in scholarship, be that – to cite two examples from this year’s volume – Hebrew verbal system or Messianic Judaism. Finally, we have almost completed the transition from standard book reviews to review essays initiated by Dr. Barmash. The state of the journal’s portfolio remains healthy, with the 2017 volume more or less full and several submissions still under review. We have thus achieved the balance of having a portfolio that is both thick and manageable, with the volume filled approximately a year before its publication and the waiting time of between one and two years for all authors. Despite earlier expectations, we have not attained the 50% rejection rate, but for the 2017 volume it has reached 45% and may still rise. All these successes would not have been possible without the indefatigable and highly professional work of the editorial team, especially of the Associate Editor, Dr. Smadar Shiffman, the Managing Editor, Dr. Rick Painter, and, of course, Dr. Barmash. 4. Pamela Barmash, incoming editor of Hebrew Studies delivered the following statement: I want to thank Serge Frolov for his excellence as an editor of Hebrew Studies: he has assembled a superb selection of articles and has produced particularly important and wide-ranging volumes. Thank you to Smadar Shiffman who has made invaluable contributions to the journal as associate editor of the journal. Special appreciation goes to Rick Painter, the managing editor, who is always on the ball and has a great eye for detail. I have a vision for how the journal ought to develop: 1. I wish to build on the high quality of articles that have been published in Hebrew Studies in recent years by insisting on even higher standards of intellectual creativity and rigor. In so doing, my goal is to create a more engaging and appealing journal. 2. Each volume should have a section or two devoted to a text or issue. These sections would include 3-5 articles, perhaps with a guest editor. 3. I plan to utilize the skills of the editorial board in two ways: brainstorm for a text or issue that is the focus of the sections of the journal mentioned above, and provide peer review of articles so that authors may receive more feedback to improve their essays. 4. The book review section of the journal will include only review essays, with book review editors for each chronological period (Bible, rabbinics, medieval, and modern). Having two editors with deep expertise in one area and lesser expertise in the other area has made for a lopsided collection of reviews. 5. I will look into a new template for essays that will have a more easy to read format than the one we have been using. I am honored to become the new editor of the journal, and I am very interested in listening to your ideas and suggestions about Hebrew Studies 3. Zev Garber, Iggeret Editor and NAPH/SBL sessions coordinator, reported on items appearing in issue 88 of Iggeret. Among these are obituaries for Jacob Neusner and Eli Wiesel as well as a plethora of views concerning academic BDS efforts. These are timely since AAR and SBL executives are negating public statement of approval of such efforts. Zev also reported on the NAPH sessions taking place at the SBL conference including the session dedicated to the Ziony Zevit Festschrift and the sessions on digital teaching of biblical Hebrew and on second temple Judaism. He concluded with a personal word of thanks to Gilead Morahg and some recollections of Gilead’s leadership of NAPH and his connection with

Fall 2016, No. 88 23 Iggeret. 4. Hélène Dallaire reported that one new Eta Beta Rho chapter was added in 2016. She expressed her enthusiasm at becoming the new EBR coordinator as well as her determination to expand its scope and reach. 5. The NAPH Nominating Committee submitted its slate of nominees for the 2016-2018 Advisory Council and replacement officers. Gilead Morahg moved that the slate be accepted. Zev Garber seconded. The motion passed. The approved slate of Advisory Board members and new officers is appended below.

Minutes prepared by Gilead Morahg NAPH Executive Vice President

NAPH Advisory Council 2016-2018 Pre-Modern Division Bill Arnold, Asbury Seminary John Cook, Asbury Theological Seminary Hélène Dallaire , Denver Theological Seminary Tim Finlay, Azusa Pacific Seminary Michael Fox, University of Wisconsin-Madison Frederick Greenspahn, Florida Atlantic University Vivian Johnson, Union Theological Seminary Kyong-Jin Lee, Fuller Seminary Jacobus Naudé, University of the Free State of Bloemfontein Tania Notarius, Hebrew University Pamela Scalise, Fuller Theological Seminary Bruce Zuckerman, University of Southern California

Modern Division Emanuel Allon, Beit Berl College Shmuel Bolozky, University of Massachusetts Esther Borochovsky Bar-Aba, Tel Aviv University Nancy Ezer, UCLA Lev Hakak, UCLA Sari Havis, University of Denver Nitza Krohn, Jewish Theological Seminary Chana Kronfeld, University of California, Berkeley Alan Mintz, Jewish Theological Seminary Shachar Pinsker, University of Michigan Yigal Schwartz, Ben-Gurion University Vered Shemtov, Stanford University

New Officers Editor of Hebrew Studies: Pamela Barmash, Emory University Editor of Hebrew Higher Education: Nitza Krohn, Jewish Theological Seminary Eta Beta Rho Coordinator: Hélène Dallaire , Denver Theological Seminary

Nominating Committee: Nancy Berg, Cynthia Miller-Naudé, Gilead Morahg, Esther Raizen, Ziony Zevit

Fall 2016, No. 88 24 NAPH 2016 Annual Meeting

The NAPH 2016 Annual Meeting was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of AAR/SBL in San Antonio, TX. Sessions of the 2016 NAPH meeting are below.

P19-335

National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/19/2016 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM Room: 217B (2nd Level - West) - Convention Center (CC) Theme: Reading the New Testament as Second Temple Jewish Literature Steven Fine, Yeshiva University, Presiding

Eran Shuali, Université de Strasbourg “God, I thank you that I am not like other people ? robbers, evildoers, adulterers” (Luke 18:11): A Comparison of the Pharisee’s prayer with a Parallel from the Tosefta (30 min) Jeffrey Paul Garcia, Nyack College All Your Righteousness: The Gospels’ Witness to the Developing Importance of Charity in Ancient Jewish Halakha (30 min) Alexandria Frisch, Ursinus College The Deaths of Judas: A Literary “Harmonization” between the New Testament, the Hebrew Bible and Post- Biblical Literature (30 min) R. Steven Notley, Nyack College The Gospel of Luke as a Witness to Jewish Life and Faith in the Second Commonwealth (30 min) Matthew Goldstone, New York University, Respondent (10 min) Brian Schultz, Fresno Pacific University, Respondent (10 min) Discussion (10 min)

P20-102

National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/20/2016 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Room: 225A (2nd Level - East) - Convention Center (CC) Theme: Annual Breakfast and Business Meeting Gilead Morahg, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Presiding (120 min)

P20-136b

National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/20/2016 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Room: Texas C (4th Level) - Grand Hyatt (GH) Theme: Prophetic Literature Marvin Sweeney, Claremont School of Theology, Presiding

C. L. Crouch, University of Nottingham ‘Israel’, ‘Judah’ and the Formation of the Book of Jeremiah (30 min) Soo J. Kim, Claremont School of Theology "So They Went Out and Smote in the City" Who Saw and Who Told: Narrative Interruption and Proleptic Focalization in Ezekiel 9:7b (30 min) Benjamin Kantor, University of Texas at Austin "Untying the Knots of the Yoke" (Isa. 58:6): An Agricultural Illusion to Jubilee (30 min) Discussion (30 min)

Fall 2016, No. 88 25

P20-136

National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/20/2016 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Room: 007C (River Level) - Convention Center (CC) Theme: Guides for Perplexed Biblicists: How to Read and Interpret Historical Dates Based on Carbon-14 and Bayesian Statistics Ziony Zevit, American Jewish University, Presiding

Ziony Zevit, American Jewish University Biblicists as Consumers of Archaeological Data — Why This Session? (10 min) Ilan Sharon, Hebrew University Radiocarbon Do's and Don'ts: Sample Collection, Measurement, Calibration, and Evaluation. (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Dean Forbes, University of the Free State An Accessible Introduction to Bayesian Analysis (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Sturt Maning, Cornell University Radiocarbon Dating and Bayesian Chronological Modeling for the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age in Levantine Archaeology: Possibilities and Limitations (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Discussion (30 min)

S20-217

Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew; National Association of Professors of Hebrew Joint Session With: Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/20/2016 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM Room: 304A (3rd Level) - Convention Center (CC) Theme: Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Richard Benton, Presiding

Nili Samet, Bar-Ilan University New Light on the Administrative Term ben bayît and Its Implications for Linguistic Dating (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Niek Arentsen, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Aramaisms in Parallelism and the Dating of Second Isaiah (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Jarod Jacobs, George Fox University Ancient Hebrew Through the Eyes of Dendrograms (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Øyvind Bjøru, University of Texas at Austin A minute case of assimilation of middle waw in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic (30 min) Discussion (15 min)

Fall 2016, No. 88 26

P20-340

National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/20/2016 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM Room: 007C (River Level) - Convention Center (CC) Theme: Using Bible Software to Understand Biblical Texts Pamela Scalise, Fuller Theological Seminary (Northwest), Presiding

Pamela J. Scalise, Fuller Theological Seminary (Northwest) Using Bible Software to Understand Biblical Texts (5 min) Michael S. Heiser, Logos Bible Software Using Bible Software to Teach Biblical Hebrew in Traditional and Tools-Based Hebrew Courses (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Matthew A. Thomas, Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena) Teaching "Hebrew" in a Classroom of Computers: Considerations of Course Design, Pedagogy, and Practicalities (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Leeor Gottlieb, Bar-Ilan University Bible Software as a Teaching Aid for Biblical Hebrew (30 min) Discussion (5 min) Christopher Dost, Alliance Theological Seminary Using the Dotan & Reich Masorah Thesaurus (30 min) Discussion (5 min)

S21-139

Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew; National Association of Professors of Hebrew Joint Session With: Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/21/2016 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Room: 303C (3rd Level) - Convention Center (CC) Theme: Linguistic Features of Rhetoric in Biblical Hebrew Prose and Poetry John Cook, Asbury Theological Seminary, Presiding

Peter Bekins, Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion The Omission of the Definite Article in Biblical Poetry (25 min) Discussion (5 min) SungGil Jang , Westminster Graduate School of Theology, Rep. of KOREA Linguistic and Rhetorical devices of Jeremiah 33.1-13 in relations to Jeremiah 30- 31 (poetic discourse) and 32 (prose narrative) (25 min) Discussion (5 min) David M. Dalwood, Ambrose University Information Structure Beyond Word Order: A Taxonomic Model with Application to Exodus 3:1-4:17 (25 min) Discussion (5 min) Cody Eklov, Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion Style Switching in the Speech of the Rabshakeh? A Study on the Nature of the Composition of 2 Kings 18:17– 19:13 (25 min) Discussion (5 min) Brian D. Lima, McGilvary College of Divinity at Payap University Hebrew Words and Texts – From a Symbol’s Limited Abstracted Meaning to Its Referential Meaning in Linguistic Co-text: The word tselem in Genesis as a Case Study (25 min) Discussion (5 min)

Fall 2016, No. 88 27

P21-233

National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/21/2016 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM Room: 007C (River Level) - Convention Center (CC) Theme: "Giving Back: A Session in Honor of Ziony Zevit" on the occasion of the publication of Lema`an Ziony: A Festschrift in Honor of Ziony Zevit

Gary A. Rendsburg, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Panelist (10 min) Theodore Lewis, Johns Hopkins University, Panelist (20 min) Cynthia L. Miller-Naude, University of the Free State, Panelist (20 min) William Schniedewind, University of California-Los Angeles, Panelist (20 min) Frederick Greenspahn, Florida Atlantic University, Panelist (10 min) Discussion (30 min)

P21-335

National Association of Professors of Hebrew 11/21/2016 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM Room: Presidio C (3rd Level) - Grand Hyatt (GH) Theme: Digital Teaching: Issues related to internet/digital course planning and instruction, geared toward Jewish history and culture, from the early biblical age to modernity Peter Zaas, Siena College, Presiding (5 min)

Kenneth Hanson, University of Central Florida The Potential of Digital Media in Teaching Biblical and Jewish Studies (30 min) Drew Billings, Pepperdine University Podcasts and the Promotion of Pedagogical Perambulations in Judaic Studies (30 min) Zev Garber, Los Angeles Valley College Na`aseh Ve-Nishma`: Old-New Talmud Torah (30 min) Peter Zaas, Siena College, Respondent (15 min) Discussion (30 min)

Fall 2016, No. 88 28 2017 NAPH CONFERENCE

The 2017 NAPH International Conference on Hebrew Language, Literature and Culture will be will be held at New York University, June 27-29, 2017 2017 and will be chaired by David Engel and Rosalie Kamlehar. A Call for Papers has been sent to all NAPH members and is posted on the NAPH website (https://naphhebrew.org). For questions, please email Jared Henson in the NAPH office at [email protected].

Hebrew Language, Literature and Culture Conference

Report on the 2016 International Conference on Hebrew Language, Literature, and Culture

Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, June 21-23, 2016

The NAPH 34rd annual International Conference on Language, Literature, and Culture was held at Brown University on June 21-23, 2016. The conference was chaired by Ruth Ben-Yehuda Adler and David C. Jacobson and sponsored by The Shueur Fund for Judaic Studies, The Office of Global Engagement, The Center for Language Studies, and The Department of Comparative Literature of brown University, with additional support from NAPH institutional membership. With almost 200 participants and close to 150 different presentations – the local hospitality was outstanding and the level of scholarly presentations highly impressive. The conference was launched at a breakfast reception in Brown University’s majestic Alumnae Hall at 8AM. An hour later the presentations began with 5 different sessions running concurrently four times a day all through the three day conference: three sessions in literature, one in biblical/postbiblical literature, one in Language/linguistic, and one in pedagogy. As in the past couple of years, most presentations were grouped into thematic sessions, some organized by colleagues, and others by the conference committee. Sessions in the area of Bible studies included a thematic session on the “The Stories of Hagar and Ishmael,” organized by Yairah Amit of Tel Aviv University; and an ongoing panel of five presenters on “Philological Problems in the Book of Genesis,” organized by Chaim Cohen of Ben Gurion University and featuring five young scholars from The Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Post Biblical Literature sessions included various themes in HAZAL literary investigations, commentators and momentary, as well as Talmudic tales in the rabbinic and contemporary Israeli cultures. A thematic session of five presenters from Bar Ilan University was organized by Aaron Ahrend and devoted to “Northern French Exegesis of the Middle ages.” Sessions in the area of Language and Linguistics included a variety of presentations in Hebrew phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, as well as sociolinguistics, rhetoric, pragmatics, stylistics, and linguistic creativity. Pedagogy sessions were organized around themes such as challenges in teaching in remote places, Jewish and Israel in Hebrew language teaching programs, teaching vocabulary, morphology and grammar, as well as various visual aids in the classroom. A special roundtable discussion was organized by Shiri Goren of Yale University featuring five instructors from various American universities presenting new ideas for improving different aspects of teaching Hebrew language. Pedagogy sessions also included 3 different workshops for Hebrew instructors on various aspects of technology in the classroom. Once again, the conference was blessed with a great variety of excellent presentations in the area of Hebrew literature and culture. There was a great variety of presentations on the Bible, nationalism, and theology in modern Hebrew literature; Hebrew works from the middle ages to the beginning(s) of the

Fall 2016, No. 88 29 modern era, Hebrew culture in contact with foreign cultures; Israeli existential dilemmas; women’s poetry and fiction; as well as historical perspectives on Hebrew literary works. Interdisciplinary sessions offered presentations on literature between theater, cinema and music as well as a look at Israeli pop culture, and more. Thematic sessions included “Mother-Tongue(s) and Hebrew Poetry,” organized by Lilach Lachman of Haifa University; “Israeli Literature in Contact with the New Testament,” organized by Ruth Kartun- Blum of Hebrew University Jerusalem; “Beginnings in/of Hebrew Literature,” Organized by Yitzhak Lewis and Roni Henig of Columbia University; “A Tribute to Yehuda Amichai,” organized by Vered Shemtov of Stanford University; “Revelation and Religious Language of Early 20th Century Literature,” organized by Orel Sharp of Hebrew University Jerusalem; “The Mother Image in Hebrew Literature,” organized by Iris Milner of Tel Aviv University; “Between Places: Present Day Hebrew Literature,” organized by Michal Arbell-Tor of Tel Aviv University; “Difference as an Existential Alterative?” organized by Smadar Shiffman of Tel Aviv university; and “Historiographic Exceptions in New Hebrew Literature,” organized by Tahel Frosh of Ben-Gurion University. The first day of the conference ended with a lively cocktail reception at Brown RISD, The Glenn and Darcy Weiner Center, followed by the traditional conference banquet. Members were greeted by Zafrira Lidovsky Cohen, NAPH Conference Coordinator; our hosts, David C. Jacobson and Ruth Ben-Yehuda Adler; and Maud S. Mandel, Dean of the College and Professor of History and Judaic Studies at Brown University. Post dinner entertainment featured singalong and dance with Shmuel Gavish, accordionist for the Karmon Israeli folk dancing group and our hostess Ruth Ben-Yehuda Adler. The second day of the conference ended with a plenary session, featuring the film “A Tale of Love and Darkness,” a 2015 drama based on the memoirs of the Israeli author Amos OZ – produced, directed, and staring Natalie Portman. The movie showing was followed by a roundtable discussion on “Cinematic Adaptations of Hebrew Classics: A Tale of Love and Darkness and other Books,” moderated by Yigal Schwartz of Ben Gurion University and Smadar Shiffman of Tel Aviv University. The conference ended with another plenary session featuring the 2014 winner of Sapir Prize, Israel’s most prestigious literary award, Reuven Namdar – a Hebrew writer who resides in NYC – for his novel, The Ruined House. After reading a few pages from the novel, Namdar responded to questions posed by Haim Weiss of Ben Gurion University, the book’s editor, as well as the audience.

Early morning of Wednesday, June 22, we held our annual business meeting. Gilead Morahg reported on the state of NAPH membership and finances; Zafrira Lidovsky Cohen reported on the state of the conference; and Adina Ofek reported on the state of HHE Journal. Ofek has served as the editor of the journal for the last 18 years and decided to step down. The new editor is Nitza Krohn of JTS.

Many thanks to Ruth Ben-Yehuda Adler, David C. Jacobson, and Brown University for their meticulous planning and gracious hospitality. Special thanks to Ruti for organizing a pre-conference optional guided tour of Newport and to the guides who took us through the city’s rich history and famous coastal mansions.

The 2016 conference committee included Mira Angrist (Boston University), Rina Ben-Shahar (University of Haifa & Oranim College of Education), Shmuel Bolozky (University of Massachusetts Amherst), Esther Borochovsky Bar Aba (Tel Aviv University), Simon Chavel (University of Chicago), Giore Etzion ((Washington University in St. Louis), Avital Feuer (University of Maryland), Shiri Goren (Yale University), Roy Greenwald (Ben Gurion University), Galia Hatav (University of Florida), Sari Havis (University of Denver), Shalom Holtz (Yeshiva University), Itamar Kislev (Haifa University), Rina Kreitman (Columbia University), Nitza Krohn (Jewish Theological Seminary), Barbara Mann (Jewish

Fall 2016, No. 88 30 Theological Seminary), Iris Miner (Tel Aviv University), Gilead Morahg (University of Wisconsin), Yaron Peleg (Cambridge University), Fabio Radak (Hebrew University Jerusalem), Yael Reshef (Hebrew University Jerusalem), Vered Shemtov (Stanford University), Naomi Sokoloff (University of Washington), Tamar Sovran (Tel Aviv University), Ilana Szobel (Brandeis University), Gideon Ticotsky (Stanford University), Haim Weiss (Ben Gurion University), and Anat Weisman (Ben Gurion University). Their dedication to NAPH and contribution to the high standards of the conference is greatly appreciated.

The continuous support of NAPH’s institutional members allowed us to offer this year generous travel grants to10 graduate students. We look forward to increasing the funding and to drawing more young scholars from around the world to future conferences. We urge all supporters of NAPH to encourage graduate students and young PhDs to join the association and consider active participation in its various activities. We also look forward to establishing academic relations with institutions of Jewish education in the USA and to engaging more Hebrew scholars beyond USA and Israel in our annual conferences, as well as other NAPH activities.

The 2017 conference will be held at New York University, June 27-29, 2017 and will be chaired by David Engel and Rosalie Kamelhar.

For more information please visit our website http://www.naphhebrew.org

Zafrira Lidovsky Cohen,

Stern College for Women of Yeshiva University NAPH Conference Coordinator [email protected]

Notes from the Field

I. “Hebrew and the Humanities: Present Tense” – A Symposium

took -- עברית ומדעי הרוח: זמן הווה מתוח --”A symposium called “Hebrew and the Humanities: Present Tense place in May, 2016 on the campus of the University of Washington, organized by Naomi Sokoloff, Nancy E. Berg, and Hannah Pressman. While we view contemporary Hebrew language and culture as filled with a startling vitality, we recognize that they are met with widespread indifference and neglect – if not hostility - by American students. In the face of such contradictions, this symposium proposed to ask, “Why Hebrew?” We examined the experience of Americans who have traversed the cultural distance from English to Hebrew. Why do they do it? What is its value? What have they gained? At the same time, “Hebrew and the Humanities” tackled a series of increasingly urgent questions about the changing status of this language on American campuses. In what ways does the embattled position of Hebrew reflect the broader challenges of language arts and humanities education today? How do Israel’s geopolitical complexity and anti-Israel sentiment on campus affect enrollment and enthusiasm for Hebrew? The conference focused on the experiences of American-born and bred scholars of Hebrew Studies, because our paths to the field, our perspectives on it, and the roles we play in it are different from those of our Israeli counterparts. We intended for the symposium to be an opportunity for assessment, self-examination, innovation, exchange of best practices, and celebration. The event was preceded by a series of blog posts titled “Connecting with Hebrew,” in which participants wrote briefly about their personal relationship with the language and considered the complicated relationship of American Jewry at large with Hebrew and Hebrew culture. In these blogs participants reflected, for instance, on the appeal of the Hebrew alphabet; on the ways in which names – first names, family names,

Fall 2016, No. 88 31 and place names – have meaning in Hebrew, concealed and then revealed to the assiduous learner; on the deep abyss of allusions under the bridge of Hebrew words; on the remarkable relationships of Hebrew to Yiddish and of written to spoken language; on idioms irreducible to translation. In some blog pieces the tone was confessional: one explained how the very stubborn and contrary nature of the language holds attraction; another outlined the rediscovery of a Hebrew poem --written for a relative on the occasion of her bat mitzvah -- that pulled its composer back from the brink of abandoning poetry for prose. In many of the blog posts the tone was celebratory. The entries spoke of different paths to the language: by way of family, in college, through texts, at camp. At times, the blog pieces turned elegiac or combative. We hosted an interchange about the dismal reality that most American Jews don’t know Hebrew: is it because they can’t learn or because they won’t try? Several blog entries directly considered our role as translators of cultural awareness. One piece untangled the information students need to be given in order to understand Megged’s The Name”). It argued that the most unsophisticated and least informed of“) "יד ושם" ,widely taught story our students can paradoxically be ideal readers, because the gap between what they do know and what they באים" need to know requires us to parse the story’s contexts. Another blog looked at the popular Israeli satire as a secular return to Jewish texts and history. Clearly irreverent, the television series is nonetheless "היהודים rooted and invested in the Jewish past, and so, in its multiple dimensions, can serve as a useful pedagogical tool in American classrooms. This cycle of short essays began to appear online in October 2015 and continued until the conference itself. The symposium was bookended by a pair of public talks, this year’s Stroum Lectures, given by two writers: “Living in Hebrew” by Dara Horn, and “Dying in Hebrew” by Ilan Stavans. Other presentations during the conference highlighted the potential of language memoir to reach inward and the role of social media to reach out; the effect of Hebrew infusion at summer camps and the lessons that Native Americans might take from Hebrew in reviving their endangered languages. We heard about the challenges of publishing literary translations from Hebrew and the multiple anxieties that arise from privileging “authenticity” in language learning. The day concluded with a round table discussion on the future of Hebrew Studies – is it to be in secular contexts, or through Jewish texts, connected to the Middle East, or disassociated from it, through immersing young children in Hebrew day care, or teaching a diverse audience about the language? The conference also featured a pop-up museum, a one-day display of artifacts that reflected our relationship with Hebrew. Items on display included WWII era Hebrew textbooks, VHS cassettes of 1970s television shows; college memorabilia; t-shirts, bananagrams® and wordspin® in Hebrew. The museum served as homage to the Tarbut Ivrit movement of the last century, as evidence for the transatlantic nature of modern Hebrew, and as mediator between the authentic and the suspect.. As a follow up to “Hebrew and the Humanities,” we are planning an edited volume of articles based on the presentations. The blogs, along with short bios of the symposium participants and the complete conference schedule, can be found on the Hebrew and the Humanities website (scroll down for full information): https://jewishstudies.washington.edu/hebrew-humanities-symposium/ We gratefully acknowledge support for the conference from the University of Washington, and, specifically, from the Stroum Center for Jewish Studies, the Simpson Center for the Humanities, The Jackson School of International Studies, the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures, and the Department of Comparative Literature, Cinema, & Media, as well as from UW alumnus, Dr. Elie Levy. Nancy E. Berg, Washington University in St. Louis, [email protected] Naomi Sokoloff, University of Washington, [email protected]

II. Working with Students on an Unpublished Dead Sea Scroll Fragment

It is always a pleasure to see a book come out in which one has contributed an article. But for me, the publication by Brill in August, 2016, of Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection (Publications of Museum of the Bible) brought a special satisfaction. I had the wonderful opportunity to work with two of

Fall 2016, No. 88 32 my graduate students, Nathan McAleese and Andrew J. Zimmermann, on a previously unpublished Dead Sea Scroll fragment and co-publish our work in a book whose chief editor was Emanuel Tov! About three years ago, my Azusa Pacific colleague Robert (Bobby) Duke informed me of an opportunity to work with students on one of several ancient artifacts owned by the Green Foundation. The Green Foundation is the charity associated with the family of David Green, the founder of Hobby Lobby. The Green Foundation has been acquiring ancient artifacts, including genizah manuscripts, amulets, Dead Sea Scroll fragments, lectionaries and phylacteries, in order to create a Museum of the Bible. The Green family themselves are conservative evangelicals but they determined to use highly respected Jewish, Protestant and Catholic experts in Biblical Studies to produce the scholarship on these artifacts. There is no evangelical agenda in Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection. Rather, the agenda of the Green Foundation was that the scholars to whom they assigned these artifacts would work with their students and co-publish the findings with them. Thus we would have the opportunity to mentor the next generation of scholars! I immediately jumped at the chance, and shortly afterwards asked A.J. and Nate if they would be interested in working with me on the project. They were even more excited than I was. A couple of weeks later, I received high resolution photographs taken by Bruce Zuckerman of USC the document on which we were to work. Incredibly, it was a Dead Sea Scroll fragment from the Torah—from Numbers 8:3-5. I showed the photographs to A.J. and Nate, and told them it was from a passage in the Hebrew Bible and to work out which passage it was from. They could hardly believe their good fortune in getting to do original work as students on an unpublished Dead Sea Scroll fragment. They made out on the first line a shin and a resh, followed by a gap and then a tsade, a waw and a he. The second line contained three words, the third line contained four more and part of a fifth—and the first word was clearly Mosheh! The fourth and final line was best of all: waw yod daleth beth resh, gap, yod he waw he, gap, aleph lamed, gap, mem shin he. The students then used their Bible software packages, searched for all the occasions that HaShem spoke to Moses, refined their results according to the other letters and words in the previous line, and discovered that the passage was from Numbers 8:3-5. This passage concerns the making of the gold lampstand for the tabernacle. The next stage was to work on a transcription of those verses, indicating through the use of brackets which letters were actually on the letter and which were reconstructed. One of the most interesting aspects in this stage was that the fragment provided evidence that the original scroll would have had a petuchah (large gap) between verses 4 and 5, just as the Masoretic Text does today. Then came the Text Critical phase. We examined the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, various Targumim, the Peshitta and other Versions. This involved teaching the students more about Text Criticism—a favorite topic of mine—than we normally have time for in regular MDiv classes. There were three differences between our fragment, with inventory number GC-SCR-003173 and assigned the designation DSS F.Num 2 (Num 8:3-5) by Eibert Tigchelar, and the MT. Two of these were plurals instead of singulars and the other was a case of our fragment containing a waw at the beginning of a word where the MT did not. It so happened that in all three of these, our fragment agreed with the Samaritan Pentateuch. We thus tentatively characterized the fragment as a “pre-Samaritan text,” realizing that far more data would be required for the characterization to be anything but tentative. This slightly affected the reconstruction, however, because we used the Samaritan Pentateuch’s he yod aleph rather than the Masoretic Text’s he waw aleph for the third person feminine singular pronoun in the reconstructed portion of the text. We also attempted to do our own work on Paleography and Date, comparing the letters on the fragment with the various paradigms of Herodean and Hasmonean scripts compiled by Frank Cross. Emanuel Tov assigned Ada Yardeni to write this section for all the fragments in the Museum Collection, but when we finally saw Yardeni’s meticulous work, we were gratified that we had not been too far out, the fragment dating to about the mid-first century B.C.E. We then gave a physical description of the dimensions and color of the fragment, and the spacing between the lines. We did our own translation of the passage. Those three verses have given me sympathy for the plight of Bible translators. We compiled notes on the readings of unclear letters, we discussed the orthography, and we discussed the fragment in relationship to the other manuscripts from the Judean Desert that contain text from the book of Numbers. This gave us the excuse to examine various DJD volumes and compare the photographs for any possible paleographic similarities to our fragment.

Fall 2016, No. 88 33 The editors—Emanuel Tov, Kipp Davis and Robert Duke—pushed us to clarify every detail and the article underwent several editions. On several occasions, we thought that our work was done, only for another revision to be necessary. But it was so worth it. The students experienced first-hand the cooperative nature of good biblical scholarship—working with Tov, Davis, Duke, Zuckerman, Yardeni and others—and the final product was immeasurably better as a result. We thank all those involved, including the Green Foundation and Brill Publishers, for this amazing opportunity. And what I enjoyed the most was my small part in mentoring a new generation of scholars in a tradition that stretches back not only 2,000 years to that first century B.C.E. fragment but to at least another 1,000 years of Mosaic tradition before that.

Timothy Finlay, Azusa Pacific University, [email protected]

III. Summer Workshop: “Hebrew Morphology in the 21st century” This summer a group of university teachers for Hebrew from around the world gathered at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for a workshop entitled "Teaching Hebrew Morphology in the 21st Century". Hosted by The International Center for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization and directed by Dr. Tania Notarius, the workshop was planned and conducted in cooperation with the Division of Hebrew Language Instruction at the Rothberg International School for Overseas Students, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The Academy of the Hebrew Language. The International Center for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization was founded in 1981, and integrated into the Hebrew University in 1997. The Center is largely committed to deepening and expanding the academic instruction of the various fields of Jewish and Israel Studies in a global perspective, and seeks to create enduring connections between university teachers outside of Israel and faculty of the Hebrew University in these academic disciplines. One of the cornerstones of the center's activity along these lines is the annual workshop for university teachers of Hebrew at academic institutions around the world, which was initiated in 1982 and is held since then every summer. This year's workshop was dedicated to aspects of "Teaching Hebrew Morphology in the 21st Century". As for this choice of topic the workshop's announcement read: "Hebrew is known for its rich inflectional morphology (verbal, nominal and pronominal), the acquisition of which is often considered challenging, dull and time-consuming, particularly at the beginners' levels. This year the workshop on Hebrew teaching at the universities abroad will explore the most updated methods that have the potential to optimize this process for both the teacher and the student." To meet these ends, the workshop's program encompassed a variety of topics related to the challenges in the analysis and classification as well as the teaching of Hebrew morphology, verbal and nominal. Aiming at a balance between theory and practice, the workshop combined a scientific component in the form of lectures on linguistic topics with an applied component including classroom observations and discussions on didactic principles and techniques. One set of theoretical talks was concerned with topics in the diachrony, i.e. historical perspective, of Modern Hebrew, hence offering explanatory models for certain linguistic phenomena and peculiarities in the present. Thus, Chanan Ariel - a phd-candidate at the Hebrew University - offered his explanation as to .was overtaken by the form of the future tense (e.g (עֲשֵׂה .why the morphological form of the imperative (e.g in this function in the contemporary spoken language. Ariel's explanations for the emergence of this (תַּעֲשֶׂה structure were thought-provoking and instructive, as this topic also regularly sparks discussions and controversy among teachers of Hebrew. Talking on a much wider scope, Dr. Einat Gonen presented fascinating and surprising findings from recordings of native Hebrew speakers from the early days of the State of Israel. On ground of the data from these early recordings, Gonen discussed several phenomena and tendencies of language change in the verbal system of Modern Hebrew, from the first generation of native speakers until today. A second key topic in the linguistic program was the complex of passive voice in Modern Hebrew, as discussed in two lectures by the linguist Dr. Dana Taube as well as by the authors of the textbook "Easing Into Modern Hebrew Grammar" - Carmia Shoval and Gila Freedman Cohen. These talks provided useful

Fall 2016, No. 88 34 linguistic tools and insights, as passive morphology and the ability to navigate between active verbs and their passive counterparts is one of the most central tasks in teaching Hebrew verbal morphology, especially throughout the intermediate levels. The passive morphology, i.e. the forms of the verbs, is of course only a rather technical aspect of the whole complex, and teaching passive voice aims at the student's' structural understanding of fundamental differences between the respective syntactic patterns. Taube's lecture offered an analysis of the linguistic functions of passive constructions, based on investigations of written corpora in Modern Hebrew. Taube's findings helped sharpen our focus with regard to applied teaching of passive constructions, through a better understanding of their functions and uses. From a different perspective on similar questions, Shoval and Freedman Cohen elaborated on the classification of the binyanim, i.e. the Hebrew verb classes - a classification, on which they modelled their aforementioned textbook. To explain and defend their classification, the authors presented their model and engaged with us in a subsequent discussion on grammatical voice, and its morphological and syntactical encoding in Modern Hebrew. Besides diachronic topics and the complex of verbal diathesis (i.e. the grammatical voice of the verb), a third main component of the linguistic program was represented by the talks of Dr. Batia Seroussi, Dr. Yishai Neuman, Prof. Ora Schwarzwald and Prof. Yael Ziv. All four speakers elaborated in their presentations on a variety of cognitive, communicative or interactional mechanisms as they come into effect in the linguistic practice of Hebrew speakers. The lectures focused on the implications of these mechanisms on the structure of Hebrew, as well as on possible opportunities for the instruction and acquisition of Hebrew as a foreign language that can be derived therefrom. Seroussi, from a perspective of native speakers and first-language acquisition, presented findings on the "mental lexicon" of Hebrew speakers, i.e. on the cognitive mechanisms through which speakers organize and classify their lexical knowledge, and on the peculiarities of the Hebrew case in this domain. These insights can be applied to increase the efficiency of teaching vocabulary also to second-language learners. Building on principles similar to those cited by Seroussi, Neuman presented and elaborated on original ways and methods to harness the principles of Hebrew word formation and lexical productivity for the instruction of Hebrew as a foreign language. In the course of his presentation, Neuman convincingly managed to show how much didactic potential can be derived from a good analytic understanding of Hebrew morphology and its inner mechanisms. Whereas Ziv gave a comprehensive introductory talk on principles of discourse grammar that touched upon various key concepts in that linguistic discipline. In this regard, it is important for us as language teachers to always ascribe a central role to certain discursive and communicative functions and their specific realization in Hebrew, as it is the command of these very functions that students require to achieve proficiency in discourse or text composition. Finally, Schwarzwald's lecture - besides touching upon a multitude of linguistic topics and their relevance for Hebrew as a foreign language instruction - put a special emphasis on frequency effects on regularity (or irregularity) on the formal and functional profile of linguistic items. In short, linguistic items that are used with a high frequency tend to undergo phonetic reduction, while being resistant to analogical regularization (for this reason the most frequently used verbs, for example, in many languages are the ones which show the most irregularities). Frequently used lexical items also tend to apply in more different uses, to have more different meanings and to appear in more idiomatic collocations than the ones used infrequently. From a didactic perspective this also means that frequent ("basic") words must be taught using a lot of context. In general, the investigation of frequency effects on linguistic forms has great potential to provide explanatory models for systematic peculiarities, and thus is very instructive both for teachers and students. The parts of the workshop devoted to applied didactics was conducted by faculty members of the Rothberg International School for Overseas Students at the Hebrew University. First we had the opportunity to observe classroom instruction of different levels at the Rothberg school's summer Ulpan, which were complemented by a discussion with the senior staff member Shelly Shloush. As the methods developed and applied by the Rothberg school are all based on the principle to teach Hebrew through Hebrew - a principle which seems to be used much less in Hebrew instruction outside of Israel, especially at beginners' levels - our international group of university teachers had a lot to discuss on methodological questions.

Fall 2016, No. 88 35 The discussions were supplemented by presentations and suggestions of two experienced teachers at the Rothberg school - Sarah (Oki) Yisraeli and Fabio Redak. Yisraeli's presentation was an exemplification of the very first steps in the instruction of the verb at beginners' level. Since there is no previous knowledge to build on, these first steps in the acquisition of the Hebrew verbal morphology are maybe the most challenging ones for both teachers and students. This is especially the case in the Hebrew through Hebrew method, which necessitates a careful choice as to what tense, binyan and verb type (gizrah) is to be taught first. Yisraeli's simulation of an early unit on components of the verbal system was supplemented by Redak's presentation which offered a variety of playful ideas on how to teach and practice Hebrew verbal morphology through games. To profit more from the program at the Rothberg school and from our encounter with different approaches in teaching verbal morphology that we had seen so far, we had the opportunity to engage in a panel discussion with the former and the present head of the Division of Hebrew Language Instruction at the Rothberg School - Gali Huminer and Tzuki Shai. Adding another perspective, it was very interesting to hear a presentation by Dalit Katz who teaches Hebrew in the US at Wesleyan University. Katz presented a class based on a documentary film, thus enriching our discussion through a practical approach by one of the participants teaching at an institution outside of Israel. In fact, this juxtaposition of didactic approaches epitomized the essence of the workshop, as a framework to meet colleagues from all over the world, including the USA, England, Switzerland, Greece, Italy, Austria and Russia, to learn from the forefront of Hebrew language instruction in Jerusalem, and to discuss and contemplate the integration of elements into one's teaching, or to prefer other techniques due to certain considerations, challenges and restrictions owed to a different teaching environment abroad. In addition to the theoretical and practical core components of the workshop at the Hebrew University, we enjoyed a highly informative and enriching day at the Academy for the Hebrew Language, which included presentations by Tamar Katzir on the Academy's web tools (to be found on the Academy's website http://hebrew-academy.org.il), as well as by Doron Rubinstein on the mammoth project of the historical lexicon of the Hebrew language and on the possibilities it offers to its online users. As teachers are often confronted with questions on morphology in general and verbal morphology in particular, a lecture by Dr. Doron Yaakov of the Language Academy on topics, problems and solutions in the morphology of the verb classes (gzarot) gave us valuable insights into the process of decision making on normative questions of Hebrew grammar within the Academy, as well as about the general rationale behind these decisions. A highlight of our visit at the Hebrew Language Academy was a captivating lecture by the senior researcher Dr. Gabriel Birnbaum on Eliezer Ben-Yehuda's vision and work and his singular and unique role in the history of the Hebrew language and the Jewish people. Birnbaum's lecture, full of stories and information, was rounded off by a visit to the small private museum for Ben-Yehuda at the Language Academy, which hosts objects such as his working high desk and the card indexes for the work on his great dictionary. Back again at the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, a fascinating final session of talks included two lectures by the scholars Dr. Keren Dubnov and Bracha Dalmatzki-Fischler on linguistic aspects of early modern Hebrew literature and its role in the emergence of the linguistic system of Modern Hebrew. Dubnov lectured on Yosef Haim Brenner's inventions and solutions with regard to discourse markers in his Hebrew translation of Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Dalmatzki-Fischler talked about the author Haim Hazaz and his early Hebrew novel Beyishuv shel ya'ar, focusing on the ingenious linguistic solutions that he devised in this Hebrew text to render and characterize a multitude of languages and forms of speech used by the protagonists in the novel's Ukrainian setting. These talks gave us a glimpse into less easily accessible aspects of the astounding story of Hebrew in the 20th century, and the abundance of fascinating linguistic and literary topics to be researched and discussed in connection with the formation and outlook of Modern Hebrew grammar and written discourse. On top of that, the talks stimulated and encouraged the integration of these and other literary works into our teaching activity with advanced and experienced students. In summary, the workshop offered a rich and balanced program combining theoretical background with advanced and well-devised techniques of practical language instruction. It proved to be a great meeting

Fall 2016, No. 88 36 place for our diverse international group of Hebrew teachers and an ideal setting for the participants to learn from each other, exchange ideas and experiences and to engage in lively discussions on approaches, challenges and opportunities in the teaching of Modern Hebrew in academic institutions around the world. Let's conclude this year's meeting by wishing the organizers and all the contributors that this workshop will continue to be an inspiring meeting place of people and their ideas for many years and many generations of Hebrew teachers to come.

Written by: Nikolaus Wildner (University of Vienna, Austria) Hagit Arieli Chai (Hebrew Union College / Judaic Study department at USC, Los Angeles)

News From Our Members

Recent Publications

Leila Bronner, Independent Scholar: “ Immortality in Judaism,” in EBR(Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception ) vol. 12 (2016) 1013-1016.

Edward M. Cook, Catholic University of America: Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic (Eisenbrauns, 2015); The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume Two: The Non-Qumran Documents and Texts, with Martin G. Abegg and James E. Bowley (Leiden: Brill, 2015).

Yael S. Feldman, New York University: “Deliverance Denied: Isaac’s Sacrifice in Israeli Arts and Culture, a Jewish- Christian Exchange? in Helen Leneman and Barry Dov Walfish, eds., The Bible Retold by Jewish Artists, Writers, Composers and Filmmakers (Sheffield UP, 2015), 85-117; “Flavius on Trial in Mandate Palestine, 1932-1945," in Martin Goodman, Tessa Rajak, and Andrea Schatz, eds., Josephus in Modern Jewish Culture (Brill Studies in Jewish History and Culture series, 2016, forthcoming); “Menasheh Kadishman” in EBR (Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, forthcoming).

Lee M. Fields, Mid-Atlantic Christian University: "Kisses and Embraces," with Marvin Wilson, Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and Post-Biblical Antiquity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2016), vol.3, 101-114.

Zev Garber, Los Angeles Valley College: “Ark of the Covenant”; “Circumcision”; “Covenant”; “Cult Stands”; “Ephod”; “Pillar Figurines”; “Tent of Meeting”; “Teraphim”; and “YHWH” in Eric Orlin, et al. (eds.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions (Routledge, 2016); “From Zion: Academic and Personal,” in The Highest Form of Wisdom: A Memorial Book in Honor of Professor Saul S. Friedman (1937-2013), edited by Jonathan C. Friedman and Robert D. Miller II (Ktav, 2016) 155-176. Reviews in ARBA, Choice, CBQ, RBL, and Shofar.

Claire Gottlieb, Independent Scholar: “Who was Bat Pharaoh, the Daughter of Pharaoh?,” New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World (edited by Meir and Edith Lubetski, Society of Biblical Literature, 2012, Atlanta, Ga.) 83-91; “Genesis I in the Twenty First Century: First Things First,” in Visions of Life in Biblical Times – the Meir Lubetski Festschrift (edited by Claire Gottlieb et. al.; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 128-139

Jonathan Grossman, Bar Ilan University: Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries (Das Alte Testament im Dialog, 9; Bern: Peter Lang, 2015); Text and Subtext: On Exploring Biblical Narrative Design (Hilal Ben-Chaim

Fall 2016, No. 88 37 Series in Jewish Studies) Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Press, 2015 (H); Abram to Abraham: A Literary Analysis of the Abraham Narrative (Das Alte Testament im Dialog, 11), Bern: Peter Lang, 2016.

Mayer I. Gruber, Ben-Gurion University (Emeritus Professor): "’el = ’et: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew, " in Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, edited by Shamir Yona, Edward L. Greenstein, Mayer I. Gruber, Peter Machinist, and Shalom M. Paul (2 vols.: Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 269-281; "The Rabbinic Sages’ Allegation about LXX Genesis 1:1: Bickerman’s Cogent Explanation," From Author to Copyist Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Tansmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir, edited by Cana Werman. (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 259-62; with Shamir Yona, "A Male Speaker's Obsession with the Feminine: the Strange Case of Lamentations 3," in Megilloth Studies, edited by Brad Embry (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2016), 72-79. Reviews in Imago Mundi, Review of Rabbinic Judaism, and Antiguo Oriente. Gruber also served on the editorial of Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, edited by Shamir Yona, Edward L. Greenstein, Mayer I. Gruber, Peter Machinist, and Shalom M. Paul (2 vols.; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2015); and Visions of Life in Biblical Times: Essays in Honor of Meir Lubetski, edited by Claire Gottlieb, Chaim (Harold) Cohen, and Mayer Gruber (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015).

Cynthia L. Miller-Naude, University of the Free State. “The Translation of Quotative Frames in the in כל Hebrew Bible” (with Jacobus A. Naudé). Folia Orientalia 52 (2015) 249-269; “Syntactic Features of Qumran Hebrew” (with Jacobus A. Naudé) in Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre van Hecke, eds., Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 114; Leiden: Brill) 88-111; “The Participle and Negation in Biblical Hebrew” (with J.A. Naudé). Kusatu 19 (2015) 165-199; “The Metatexts of 1 and 2 Maccabees” (with Jacobus A. Naudé). Journal for Semitics 24 (2015)237-270; “Similarity and Alterity in Translating the Orality of the Old Testament in Oral Cultures” (with Tshokolo J. Makutoane and Jacobus A. Naudé). Translation Studies 8/2 (2015) 156-74.

Jacobus A. Naude, University of the Free State. “The Translation of Quotative Frames in the Hebrew in כל Bible” (with Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé). Folia Orientalia 52 (2015) 249-269; “Syntactic Features of Qumran Hebrew” (with Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé) in Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre van Hecke, eds., Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 114; Leiden: Brill) 88-111; “The Participle and Negation in Biblical Hebrew” (with Cynthia l. Miller-Naudé). Kusatu 19 (2015) 165- 199; “The Metatexts of 1 and 2 Maccabees” (with Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé). Journal for Semitics 24 (2015) 237-270; “Similarity and Alterity in Translating the Orality of the Old Testament in Oral Cultures” (with Tshokolo J. Makutoane and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé). Translation Studies 8/2 (2015) 156-74.

Paul Overland, Ashland Theological Seminary: “Then the King of Nineveh Spoke,” in Hador 7 (2016), 184-187; “Wisdom Traditions of Ancient Israel,” in Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton, eds., Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Â Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, forthcoming).

Moshe Pelli, University of Central Florida: Kochvei Yitzhak, the Journal of the Haskalah in the Austro- Hungarian Empire (1845–1873) - Monograph and Annotated Indices. The Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2016 (H); “Anti-Hasidic Satire in Kochvei Yitzhak (1845-1873), The Journal of Hebrew Haskalah,” Hador 2016, 147-154 (Hebrew);“Hehalutz Leading the People of Israel in the Struggle of .Haivrit, vol. 63 (No. 3-4, 2016), 151-159 ”,?’תושיה‘ What Is – ”’תושיה‘ Religion and

Yaron Peleg, University of Cambridge: Directed by God: Jewishness in Contemporary Israeli Film and Television (University of Texas Press, 2016); “Secularity and its Discontents: Religiosity in Contemporary Israeli Film and TV,” Jewish Film & New Media: An International Journal 3. 1 (2015):3-24; “Re-

Fall 2016, No. 88 38 Orientalizing the Jew: Contemporary Israeli Masculinities,” Orientalism, Gender, and the Jews: Literary and Artistic Transformations of European National Discourses, Brunotte, Ulrike, Anna-Dorothea Ludewig, and Axel Stahler, eds. Vol. 23 (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2015) 176-194; “A New Hebrew Literary Diaspora? Israeli Literature Abroad,” Studia Judaica 18.2 (36) (2016) 321-338.

Gary A. Rendsburg, Rutgers University: “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives (edited with James K. Hoffmeier and Alan R. Millard; Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 13; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2016); “Moses the Magician,” in Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider, and William H. C. Propp (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience (Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences; Berlin: Springer, 2015) 243-258; “Gordon, Cyrus Herzl,” Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 10 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015) 663; “The Nature of Qumran Hebrew as Revealed through 1QpHab,” in Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke (eds.), Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 114; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 132-159; “Style-Switching in Biblical Hebrew,” in Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin (eds.), Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible: Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor תפילה לדוד: “ ;of Jo Ann Hackett (Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 12; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015) 65-85 Oqimta: Studies in Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature 2 (5774 / 2014) 41-45, online at ”,הערה קצרה http://www.oqimta.org.il/oqimta/5774/rendsburg2.pdf; “Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah,” in Shamir Yona, et al. (eds.), Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015) 435-463; “Literary and Linguistic Matters in the Book of Proverbs,” in John Jarick (ed.), Perspectives on Israelite Wisdom: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (The Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 618; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2016) 111-147; “Marking Closure,” Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016) 280-303; “Notes on 2 Kings 9:36-37,” Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016) 317-323; “The Literary Unity of the Exodus Narrative,” in James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg (eds.), “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 13; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2016) 113-132.

Ora R. Schwarzwald, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan: “Modern Hebrew and Judeo-Spanish Ke- (Que-) in Independent Modal Constructions,” Journal of Jewish Languages 3 (2015), 91103 (with Sigal Shlomo); “The Halakhic Language in Two Ladino Books from the 16th Century,” Massorot 18: 2016, 153-191 (H); “Substratum, Language Contacts, Social Stratification, and Language Variables,” Karmillim (Ha-Ivrit we-`ayoteha) 11 (2016) 55-71 (H); review in Higher Hebrew Education 18 (2016), 237-242.

W.Th. (Wido) van Peursen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: ‘Mathematical rigor and scholarly intuition. Some Reflections on Andersen’s and Forbes’ Biblical Hebrew Gram Visualized’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 52 (2015) 298–307; ‘Linguistic Observations on the Hebrew Prayer of Manasseh from the Cairo Genizah’, in E.J.C. Tigchelaar and P. Van Hecke (eds.), Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period. Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies in the Texts of the Desert of Judah 114; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 112–131.

Fall 2016, No. 88 39

Current Research in Progress

Moshe Pelli, University of Central Florida, is working on a manuscript titled Hame’asef for the year 1817, found at the National Library in Jerusalem, Manuscript Department, written by Meier De Wulft, an unknown Maskil, in Holland. He previously published a chapter in my book on two early volumes of the same manuscript, Hame’asef Keter Torah, for the years 1815, 1816. It is an attempt to emulate the original Hame’asef.

Michael B. Shepherd, Cedarville University School of Biblical and Theological Studies: Textuality and the Bible (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2016)

Laura Wiseman, York University: Voice of Responsibility: “Dahlia Ravikovitch’s ʿEgla ʿarufa (Felled Heifer),” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 15 (2) (2016) 301-317; “Shelom ‘Olamim—Eternal Peace by S.Y. Agnon: Yishuv-Era Society on the Brink of Statehood,” Journal of Modern Judaism 36 (2) (2016) 163- 185; “Lament in Hebrew Poetry: In Search of an Equitable Calculus of Voices from Antiquity to Modernity,” Australian Journal of Jewish Studies. 28 (2014) 152-189.

Recent Promotions or Change in Position

Zafrira Lidovsky Cohen, Stern College for Women of Yeshiva University, was promoted to Full Professor of Hebrew.

Laura Wiseman, York University, was promoted to Associate Professor and appointed to Koschitzky Family Chair in Jewish Teacher Education (2104).

Curriculum Innovations and Awards

Ora R. Schwarzwald, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, won the 2015 Landau prize for arts and sciences of Mifal Hapayis for my Ladino studies (it is a competitive prize). She was also nominated recently a correspondent member of the Spanish Royal Academy. (in addition to being a member of the Hebrew Language Academy since 2005).

Michael B. Shepherd, Cedarville University School of Biblical and Theological Studies: Recognition for Outstanding Academic Achievement at the Third Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Theological Fellowship in Atlanta, Ga. November 17, 2015.

Fall 2016, No. 88 40 ETA BETA RHO HONOR SOCIETY National Scholastic Honor Society for Students of Hebrew Language and Culture

We are pleased to welcome a new chapter to EBR. The Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson branch has been assigned the designation “Kaph-Aleph”. This should serve as a reminder that there are numerous institutions represented among the NAPH membership, and even some institutional members, which do not have EBR chapters. Since students appreciate recognition of their hard-won attainments in Hebrew, I urge you to consider establishing a chapter this year. For information, please contact me ([email protected]). We also just received news from two chapters of new inductees to the Society. The “tet zayin” chapter at Colorado Christian University, under their faculty advisor, Dr. Kyle Greenwood inducted the following students this past May: Kayla Baker, Alison Channita, Cally Claussen, Kyle Freeman, Chase Gebhart, Paul Ji. Hannah Joslin, Naomi Ketchens, Peter Yeung. Ashland Theological Seminary inducted these three new members under the instruction of Dr. Paul Overland: Joseph Ellis, Ashley Kronick, Stacey Richter. Congratulations to each one! We would love to hear of news from other chapters, whether of new inductees or innovative initiatives that you are undertaking to encourage students in their learning. Leshana tovah tikatevu. David W. Baker, National Coordinator, EBR ([email protected])

ETA BETA RHO National Scholastic Honor Society for Students of Hebrew Language and Culture Chapters

(* = inactive or non-responsive) 1. Alpha *Hunter College 2. Beta *New York University 3. Gamma *Butler University 4. Delta/Dalet University of Maryland, Nili Levy ([email protected]) 5. Epsilon *Temple University 6. Zeta *Rutgers University 7. Eta Wheaton College, Illinois, Michael Graves ([email protected]) 8. Theta *Immanuel School of Religion, Milligan College 9. Iota *Lehman College, Zelda Newman, ([email protected]) 10. Kappa *Los Angeles Valley College 11. Tav *University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Bruce Rosenstock, ([email protected]) 12. Mu *Western Conservative Baptist Seminary 13. Nu *University of Wisconsin 14. Heh Cincinnati Christian University and Seminary, Sara Fudge 15. Vav *Yeshiva University 16. Zayin *Florida Christian College 17. Heth *Sterns College 18. Chi Indiana University, Steven Katz ([email protected]) 19. Tet *Columbia Bible College and Biblical Seminary 20. Yod Bethel Theological Seminary, Paul Ferris ([email protected])

Fall 2016, No. 88 41

21. Kaph Ashland Theological Seminary, David Baker ([email protected]) 22. Lamed University of Utah, Keren Rubinstein 23. Mem *Brigham Young University 24. Nun Bluefield College, Timothy Crawford ([email protected]) 25. Samekh *Cumberland College 26. ‘Ayin University of Arizona, J. Edward Wright ([email protected]) 27. Peh Brandeis University, Vardit Ringvald 28. Tsadeh Washington University, St Louis, Martin Jacobs ([email protected]) 29. Qoph University of Minnesota- Twin Cities, Bernard Levinson ([email protected]) 30. Resh Asbury Seminary, Bill Arnold ([email protected]) 31. Shin University of Mary Hardin– Baylor, Stephen Von Wyrick ([email protected]) 32. Yod-aleph George Washington University, Yaron Peleg ([email protected]) 33. Yod-beth University of Oklahoma, Ori Kritz ([email protected]) 34. Yod-gimel City College, New York, Michael Waxman ([email protected]) 35. Gimel-dalet-lamed *Waldorf College 36. Yod-dalet University of Kansas, Sari Havis ([email protected]) 37. Tet-vav Middlebury College, Nathan Devir ([email protected]) 38. Tet-zayin Colorado Christian University, Kyle R. Greenwood ([email protected]) 39. Yod-heth Fuller Theological Seminary 40. Yod-tet University of Denver, Sari Havis ([email protected]) 41. Kaph-Aleph The Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson

Inquiries about the society should be addressed to its national director: Professor David W. Baker, Ashland Theological Seminary, Biblical studies, 910 Center Street, Ashland, OH 44805; [email protected].

Fall 2016, No. 88 42

NAPH Officers and Advisory Council

President: Advisory Council Advisory Council ESTHER RAIZEN Pre-Modern Division: Modern Division: University of Texas at Austin BILL ARNOLD EMANUEL ALLON Executive Vice President: Asbury Seminary Beit Berl College GILEAD MORAHG University of Wisconsin-Madison JOHN COOK SHMUEL BOLOZKY Asbury Theological Seminary University of Massachusetts Vice President: Amherst MARVIN SWEENEY HÉLÈNE DALLAIRE Claremont School of Theology Denver Theological Seminary ESTHER BOROCHOVSKY BAR TIM FINLAY ABA Vice President: Tel Aviv University ZAFRIRA LIDOVSKY COHEN Azusa Pacific Seminary Stern College MICHAEL FOX NANCY EZER UCLA Immediate Past President: University of Wisconsin-Madison CYNTHIA MILLER-NAUDÉ FREDERICK GREENSPAHN LEV HAKAK University of the Free State Florida Atlantic University UCLA International Conference VIVIAN JOHNSON SARI HAVIS Coordinator: Union Theological Seminary University of Denver ZAFRIRA LIDOVSKY COHEN KYONG-JIN LEE NITZA KROHN Stern College for Women, Yeshiva Jewish Theological Seminary University Fuller Theological Seminary CHANA KRONFELD Editor of Hebrew Studies: JACOBUS NAUDÉ University of California, Berkeley SERGE FROLOV University of the Free State - Southern Methodist Bloemfontein ALAN MINTZ University; Dedman College Jewish Theological Seminary TONYA NOTARIUS SHACHAR PINSKER Editor of Hebrew Higher Education: Hebrew University of Jerusalem NITZA KROHN University of Michigan Jewish Theological Seminary PAMELA J. SCALISE Fuller Theological Seminary YIGAL SCHWARTZ Editor of Iggeret: Ben-Gurion University ZEV GARBER BRUCE ZUCKERMAN VERED SHEMTOV Los Angeles Valley College University of Southern California Stanford University Eta Beta Rho Coordinator: DAVID BAKER Ashland Theological Seminary

Esther Raizen Serge Frolov Zev Garber Zafrira Lidovsky Cohen President, NAPH (Editor, Hebrew Studies) (Editor, Iggeret) (Coordinator, NAPH University of Texas at Southern Methodist Los Angeles Valley College Internationl Conference) Austin University; Dedman College 5800 Fulton Avenue Stern College for Women, 1 University Station P.O. Box 750202 Van Nuys, CA 91401 Yeshiva University Austin, TX 78712 Dallas, TX 75275 [email protected] 245 Lexington Avenue [email protected] [email protected] New York, NY 10016 [email protected] Gilead Morahg Nitza Krohn David W. Baker (NAPH Executive Vice (Editor, Hebrew Higher (Coordinator, ETA BETA President) Education) RHO Honors Society) University of Wisconsin Jewish Theological Ashland Theo. Seminary 1346 Van Hise Hall Seminary Biblical Studies 1220 Linden Drive 3090 Broadway 910 Center Street Madison, WI 53706-1558 New York, NY 10027 Ashland, OH 44805 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]